1920-06-26

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN A. CURRIE (Simcoe North) presented the second report of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on Printing.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: With reference to the
editorial committee it seems to me-


Mr. SPEAKER:: There can be no discussion on the presentation of a report; a die-

euesion can take place only on a motion for concurrence.


Mr. CURRIE:: I understand the report
will appear in the Votes and Proceedings on Monday.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.



BOARD OF COMMERCE-RESIGNATION OF JUDGE ROBSON.

[Stage Direction]
(Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister): I beg to lay on the Table correspondence with regard to the resignation of Judge Robson. This is in response to the request of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and also in compliance with orders that have been passed by the House upon the motions of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) and the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill).
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: Does
the return the Prime Minister has just presented include all the correspondence, or has some been withheld?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: It is all included so far as I am aware.



REPORT TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of Administrative Chairman of the Honourary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research of Canada, for the year ended March 31, 1919.-Sir George Foster.
Report relating to mail subsidies and steamship subventions for the year ended March 31, 1919.^Sir George Foster.

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: I wish, to call the attention of the Government to some orders for returns which were passed by the House, some even last session, .and which have not yet been brought down. There were two returns of last session, one regarding the Ste. Anne military hospital, the second regarding the list of the Grand Trunk shareholders. On the 29th March of this session an order was passed calling for specifications and plans in connection with the Vancouver drydock and the contract given to Messrs. J. Coughlan and Sons, Limited. Another was passed on April 19 calling for a list of all farmers who enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Another was passed on April 21 regarding the War Stamps Act, amounts collected, expenses of administration and fines in the different cases. Another was passed on April 26 asking for- a return showing the amount of

liquor imported into Canada from 1913 to 1919. Another was passed on May 26 asking for a return showing the average prices of anthracite coal from 1914 to the present. Another was passed on June 14 asking for a return showing the names of insurance companies which have complied with section 115 of the Insurance Act of 1910, chapter 157. All these returns are important, and I hope the ministers will find time to lay them on the table of the House before the end of the session. I wish to call special attention to the order respecting the list of Grand Trunk shareholders. I insist on this one especially.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall direct the attention of the ministers to my hon. friend's request. It brings back to me some old memories, because I recollect that on one occasion, as leader of the Opposition I read out a list of about three typewritten pages of returns that had been ordered during the then session and two previous sessions and which had not been brought down. The failure to bring down returns seems to be common to all administrations but I shall endeavour to expedite these returns.


Mr. BEL  AND@: When the right hon. gentleman is leader of the Opposition we shall see that he gets his returns.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysboirough):: More than a year ago I obtained an ordeT of the House of Commons for the production of all correspondence relating to the appointment of a Lieutenant Governor for Prince Edward Island. The order has not yet been coimplied with. I should like to know when I may expect the return to be brought down.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there is any correspondence; at all events, any that can be brought doiwn, but I shall make inquiry.



THE BOARD OF COMMERCE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order® of the Day:
Mr. M. STEELE (South Perth) :: In view of the fact that all three members of the Board of Commerce have resigned, and that there is now no board in existence, is it still necessary that merchants and others shall ecuitinue to supply the reports demanded by the former members of the board, and especially the report of the monthly purchases and sales by retail grocers.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon, friend is not quite ac-

curate in his estimate of the situation. Mr. O'Conmr's resignation does not take effect until the 30th day of the present month. Mr. Murdock's resignation will be accepted as soon as an opportunity can be afforded of making the necessary recommendation to His Excellency the Governor General. In the meantime, I should consider it highly iadviaaible ithait the merchants and1 either persons mentioned should continue to supply the reports as required.
, CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.



CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS BY SENATE TO BILL 53.-OBSERVANCE OF HOLIDAYS.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded Ito the further consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 53, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, and the Civil Service Amendmenlt Act, 1919.
Robert Laird Borden: When I moved the adjournment of *the debate last Wednesday, I had not then made research into the law as it stood before the Civil Service Act of 1918 was enacted, Or into the precise effect of the amendmenlt introduced by the Senate. Since then I have had opportunity of having a memorandum prepaired, which was submitted to me only to-day, and I think it is my duty ito state its purport to the House. ,There seems to be no general statute declaring tvhat shall he public holidays throughout Canada. The' following appears ,to he the present state of the laiw:
. First, there are holidays by common law, what are known ias common laiw holidays. These are Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day. In addition to that, there are public holidays so declared by statute- Dominion Day and Victoria Day. Other days, so far as they are observed as general public holidays, laire observed either as a .result of ia proclamation of the Governor General in Council or by custom.
The Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 24, An Act Respecting the Public Revenue, prescribes in isection 91, certain public holidays for the officers .and persons employed in the collection land management of the revenue, as follows;
No day shall be kept as a public holiday by the officers and persons employed in the collection and management of the revenue, except Christmas Day, New Year's Day and Good Friday in every year, any day appointed by proclamation of the Governor General for the purpose of a general fast, or of a general thanksgiving, such days as are appointed for
the celebration of the birthday of His Majesty and 'His IRoyal successors, and any (other statutory holiday, and any other such days as are, from time to time appointed as holidays by the Governor in Council.
The Bills of Exchange Act, in section 43, declares Ithait in all mailers relating to Bills of Exchange certain days shall be observed as legal holidays and non-juridical dlays, as follows:
In all matters relating to bills of exchange the following, and no other days shall be observed as legal holidays or non-juridical days:
(a)	In all provinces of Canada:	Sundays,
New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Victoria Day, Dominion Day, Labour Day, Christmas Day.
The birthday (or the day fixed by proclamation for the celebration of the birthday) of the reigning sovereign;
Any day appointed by proclamation for a public holiday, or for a general fast, or a general thanksgiving throughout Canada.
The day next following New Year's Day, Christmas Day, Victoria Day, Dominion Day, and the birthday of the sovereign when such days respectively fall on Sunday.
(b)	In the province of Quebec in addition to
the said days:	Epiphany, The Ascension, All
Saints' Day, Conception Day.
(c)	In any one of the provinces of Canada, any day appointed by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor of such province for a public holiday, or for a fast or thanksgiving within the same, and any non-juridical day by virtue of a statute of such province.


Mr. BELAND:: Is the right hon. gentleman quoting from the statute?


Robert Laird Borden: I am quoting, as I have said, from the Bills of Exchange Act. My hon. friend will observe that I have quoted from two statutes, first, from the Act respecting the Public Revenue, and secondly, from the Bills of Exchange Act.
The Interpretation Act, subsection 11 of section 34, defines holidays as follows:
(11) "holiday" includes Sundays, New Year's Day, the Epiphany, Good Friday, the Ascension, All Saints' Day, Conception Day, Easter Monday, Ash Wednesday, Christmas Day, the birthday or the day fixed by proclamation for the celebration of the birthday of the reigning sovereign, Victoria Day, Dominion Day, the first Monday in September, designated Labour Day, and any day appointed by proclamation for a general fast of thanksgiving.
Hon. gentlemen will observe that this is simply a definition of the word "holiday." It does not declare that these days are holidays, but it declares that when the word "holiday" is used in any statute it shall include the days which are enumerated in the subsection that I have just read.
Now, up to 1918 there was no provision in the Civil Service Act which made any of these days a public holiday. To bring

about any such result it would be necessary to find in the Civil Service Act a declaration that the civil servants were to be relieved of their duties on holidays, and no such provision whether by implication or otherwise was to be found in the Civil Service Act up to 1918. Therefore, I should like to point out to my hon. friends on the other side of the House who have raised this question, that up to that time, and indeed up to the present time, the arrangement with regard to religious holidays such as are mentioned here was entirely a mat>
ter of custom and of convention in Ottawa. The civil servants were not entitled to them as a matter of right, but they received the privilege as a matter of custom and of convention. I want to make that absolutely * plain to my hon. friends on the other side and to all the members of the House, because the effect of the Senate amendment is very closely related to that fact, which I believe to be undoubted, from the information supplied to me in the memorandum from which I have been quoting.
Now, in the Civil Service Act of 1918 we find this provision:
The deputy head may grant to each officer, clerk or other employee a yearly leave of absence for a period not exceeding eighteen days in any one fiscal year, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, after they have been at least one year in the service.
That provision as it appeared in the revised statutes of 1906, chapter 16, section 101, was as follows:
The head of a department may grant to each officer, clerk or other employee, leave of absence for purposes of recreation for a period not exceeding three weeks in each year.
My hon. friends will observe that in the section as it stood up to 1918 there was no reference to the Sundays and holidays. The word "holidays" was introduced for the first time in 1918, and it might be argued that by implication the provisions of the Interpretation Act were brought into force and therefore the holidays enumerated in the Revised Statutes ought to take effect in respect of the Civil Service. We made inquiry as to where this particular amendment came from and how it came to be introduced into the legislation of 1918; and the secretary of the Civil Service Commission informs us that there was no special reason for introducing it and that it was not the intention of the Civil' Service Commission to bring about any such result as that which might be deduced from the use of the word in that way.
Now, I should like to point out that the introduction of a number of holidays into 
the Civil Service Act is undesirable for the reason that if such a provision is applied to the inside service it cannot very well be withheld from the outside service. A regulation was established last year by the Civil Service Commission and approved of by the Governor in Council which not only gives a special allowance to persons who work on a public holiday on which they are not required to work, but further provides that they are to be remunerated at the rate of "time and a half," as it is called. Therefore, to establish a number of holidays by the Civil Service Act might entail upon the public revenues of Canada a very considerable burden. We have addressed ourselves to the Civil Service Commission with regard to the Senate amendment and they have made a statement to us from which I extract the following:
The Civil Service Commission is of the opinion that this amendment should be approved inasmuch as none of these five days are observed as holidays in the banking or commercial world throughout the Dominion generally; and it is found that the closing of Government offices on these days is a matter of very serious inconvenience to the public.
The commission further advise that some years ago the civil servants enjoyed a holiday on Corpus Christi, St. Peter and St. Paul's day and other Saint days of the same nature; that these were struck off the list a number of years ago and that the reasons which led to such action are equally applicable to the elimination of the other days alluded to.
As a net result of what I have said I need only emphasize these two points: first, that up to 1918, and indeed up to the present time-because the Act of 1918 was never regarded as having the effect I have suggested-the arrangements with regard to the exemption of civil servants on certain days of religious observance has been entirely a matter of custom and convention and not a matter of law; and, second, as a consequence of that (putting aside for the. moment the legislation of 1918), the amendment proposed by the Senate confers a right which was never conferred before, inasmuch as it gives the force of law to that which before had merely the force of custom and convention.	[DOT]	*
In the circumstances I hope that my hon. friends who have advanced their opinions, as it was their perfect right to do, with regard to this matter will realize that the Senate amendment is not of the character that they suggest. While it does not go so far as I would desire nevertheless it does give the force of law to an established custom as to certain days of religious ob-

servance, although there was no such force attached to the observance of these days in the years that have elapsed since Confederation.
/f Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce): May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether should some of the civil servants find it a religious obligation for them to attend church on, say, Epiphany, All Saints' Day, Ascention Day, and Conception Day, they could avail themselves of the privilege to ' do so?


Robert Laird Borden: They have
availed themselves of that privilege during the past fifty years without any statutory provision whatever, and I can assure my hon. friend that 'it is not the intention of
Ithis Government to depart from or to violate in any way the custom that has thus prevailed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Must I conclude from the
remarks of the Prime Minister that the Government concurs in the amendment of the Senate?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, while I appreciate what has been stated by the Prime Minister, knowing his broad views on religious matters, I cannot but regret that we so to speak consecrate in the law of the land a principle which, up to the present time, has not been considered as part and parcel of our legislation. I am not accustomed to pay compliments to my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), but I must tender him on this occasion my sincere congratulations on the broad spirit in which the other day he regarded this amendment. It does good at times, Mr. Speaker, to have an Orangeman and a Catholic stand together for the maintenance of a principle involving tolerance and freedom. Now, I appeal to my right hon. friend. He states, and he is right in stating, that since Confederation there has been no impediment imposed by any of the departments of the Government to prevent public officials from attending their religious duties whenever, on certain days, I they find themselves under a religious obligation to do so. The British constitution, Mr. Speaker, is made up of precedents, of old usages, and of customs, most of them not embalmed in the Statute Book. That is the spirit of the British constitution. Freedom, as Tennyson says, " broadening slowly down from precedent to precedent," until it has become what we know it as today. Whv should we in Canada, not re-271 J	*
spect ancient usages and time-honoured customs which have been accepted by both elements of our population, Protestants and Catholics alike? Since Confederation we have had in the office of Prime Minister of Canada Sir John A. Macdonald, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, Sir John Thompson, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Charles Tupper, Sir John Abbott, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the present incumbent, the Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden. Never has this question been raised in any way, shape or form. It has been practically admitted that in this capital city of the Dominion, Roman Catholics in the Civil Service could attend reli- 1 gious service on these holidays, and that ; nobody would take exception to it. I am sure that nobody in this House, whether he be a staunch Orangeman, like the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best), whether he be a Presbyterian, or a Methodist, will take exception to the fact that these religious holidays have been kept. Why should we not accept the precedent which has been created, which has been observed and which has never been challenged-


Robert Laird Borden: Nobody is challenging it.	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, hut if we agree to
the amendment of the Senate we depart from the custom which has been established. We do away with a time-honoured usage and we may not always have a Prime Minister who is so broad-minded as is the right hon. gentleman. He says that no exception will be taken to the observance of these holidays. Well and good, but still under the amendment of the Senate in which we are askedi to concur, these holidays will be done away with.


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is as I understand it.


Robert Laird Borden: I should like to make it plain to the hon. gentleman. If there was no statutory provision on the subject, matters would go on in this country exactly as they have done for the past fifty years. It would continue to depend upon custom and convention to which my hon. friend has alluded. Now the Senate have given the force of law to a portion of that custom and convention.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I take it that under the amendment of the Senate it is for the future decided that certain religious holidays which have existed by custom since Confederation are abolished.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought I had informed my hon. friend that the acceptance of the Senate amendment is not intended to disturb the custom and convention that has existed for something like fifty years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am quite ready to accept my right hon. friend's word. I shall never doubt it, but at all events I understood that the amendment of the Senate did what I have stated. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding. If my right hon. friend says that nothing will he changed in the customs and usages acceded to on all sides and intended to create in this capital city a spirit of tolerance and broadmindedness, I am very glad to accept the declaration.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: If the Bill passes
as the Senate have amended it, what about [DOT]the civil servants on these holidays? Will they be able to take a holiday or have to go to the office?


Robert Laird Borden: The practice that has been observed in the past will be con. tinued. It has been the practice in the past, I think, to include all the days that are referred to by my hon. friends on the other side of the House. These days will continue to be observed in the future in the way in which they have been observed in the past. The sole purpose accomplished by the Bill, even as amended by the Senate, is to take two of these holidays out of i the status of custom and convention and transfer them to the status of law.


Mr. BUREAU:: If I understand lightly, there are certain feasts which affect Catholics and which are enumerated in the interpretation clause of the Revised Statutes under the woid "holidays." The Prime Minister states that those who profess the Catholic religion hereafter will not be affected by these restrictions which are made in the Civil Service Act. Is my interpreta-\ tion correct when I say that Epiphany, Ascension Day, All Saints' Day, and the feast of the Immaculate Conception are not included and that it is not intended to en-
I force upon people who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church the observance of these feasts, but that those who belong to the Catholic religion shall be at liberty to observe them according to the laws of their church without any deduction of pay if the observance should take any of the time which they ought to give to the \ public service?


Robert Laird Borden: I thought I had made myself perfectly plain a great many times.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is right that my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) should have the answer because he has put the question more clearly than I did.


Robert Laird Borden: I have said two or three times that so far as these days of religious observance and religious duty are concerned, the whole matter has rested on custom and convention. It would have been far better, I think, if this had not been disturbed by the Senate. The effect of our action is simply to transfer from custom and convention two days which formerly depended solely thereon. These two days are transferred to the list of public holidays which must be observed in the Civil Service as a matter of law. I would have preferred to have had the matter left as it originally was; that is to say, resting upon custom and convention, but bon. gentlemen will understand that we are most anxious to avoid the defeat of this Bill and that there is a possibility, and even a strong probability, that it will be defeated unless we concur in this amendment. I hope hon. gentlemen will accept the assurance on behalf of the Government that this custom and convention which has prevailed in the past will continue in the future.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would have liked to have had from the right hon. gentleman an expression of opinion on the other amendment excluding the 'Senate officials from the operation of the Civil Service Act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That has been disposed of.
* Sir ROBERT BORDEN: We declined to concur.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Very well.


Samuel Hughes: What is the custom in the Quebec legislature-are these holidays observed there?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I would suggest that if there are to be any holidays observed, the "17th of Ireland" and the twelfth of July might very properly be observed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The motion can pass "on division."
Motion agreed to on division, and Senate amendment read a second time and concurred in.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (for the Postmaster General) moved concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 167, to amend the Post Office Act. He said: The amendments made by the Senate are to remove the ambiguity that seems to have been in the Bill under which it was supposed weekly newspapers were not included in the three-quarters of a cent rate.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MARTIN BURRELL moved concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 178 to amend the Inland Revenue Act. He said: The amendment made by the Senate strikes out a clause in the Bill which provided for a new definition of standard leaf tobacco in regard to the moisture content. There have been a great many representations from different tobacco manufacturers all over the country that it would involve great hardship to adjust themselves suddenly to the provisions of this clause, and on the whole we have thought it better to postpone the .matter and allow the clause to go.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor general) moved concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 126, to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Joseph Archambault: What is the nature of the amendments?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The Senate has undertaken to strike out two of the clauses of the Bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act which this House passed this session. The first is in relation to the fees and remuneration of trustees under the Act. Under the original Act these fees were limited to five per cent of the estate. Under the Act which this House passed this session, power was given to increase that amount with the consent of the inspectors or of the court. The Senate has refused to pass that amendment and has stricken it out from the Bill. The second amendment refers to solicitors' costs. The provision in the Act which passed this House last session was that the costs of solicitors, attorneys and the like should not exceed .five per cent of the estate. Under the amendment which was made during the present session these costs were to be taxed
according to a tariff to be fixed by general rule. The Senate has likewise stricken out that amendment. In my opinion these two clauses improve the Bill, ,and I would not like to say on behalf of the Government that they have ben abandoned. At the same time I do not think any difficulty will come through the action of the Senate during the next six or eight months; and I think as an experiment-indeed the whole Act is experimental-we may as well con- . cur in these amendments at the present time. If, however, it becomes necessary at a future time the Government may seek the opportunity to restore the two clauses in question.


Joseph Archambault: What will be the tariff of solicitors as a result of these amendments?


Hugh Guthrie: Under the Act, five per cent of the estate will be the maximum amount that can be charged.


Joseph Archambault: I understand that the Act comes into force on the 1st of July. Have the necessary trustees been appointed?


Hugh Guthrie: I could not answer that question; the administration of the Act is in the hands of the 'Secretary of State.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That question has already been submitted on two or three occasions on the Orders of the Day. I do not know that it is in order at this stage of the proceedings.


Joseph Archambault: I was under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment of the 'Senate referred to the appointment of trustees.


Hugh Guthrie: It does not refer to the appointment of trustees but to their remuneration.


Joseph Archambault: The question I
asked was whether the trustees had been appointed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Government has already answered that very question.


Joseph Archambault: The information is not very precise.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Do I understand that the action of the Senate restores the old sections?


Hugh Guthrie: The Act will remain as it passed last session with respect to the. two sections in question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 152 to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act. He said: The amendments of the Senate are not at all material; indeed the word "clerical" could be used to describe them. I am prepared to recommend the acceptance of the amendments.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the House to again go into committee on Bill No. 12 respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise.
Hugh Guthrie: May I ask the consent of the House to refer back to the committee of the whole the report made on Thursday last in respect of clauses 19 and 76. I beg to move:
That the report of the Committee of the Whole on sections 19 and 76 of the Electoral Franchise Act, Bill No. 12, received on the 24th of June, he referred back to the committee for further consideration and amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion, of course, can only he made by unanimous consent..


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Hugh Guthrie: On Thursday resolutions were passed through the committee in respect to sections 19 and 76 of the Franchise Act. Section 19 is the section which provides for the appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer and fixes the salary of that official. Seventy-six is the section which provides for the payment of fees to election officials for the conduct of an election. It is Only proposed now to amend the first part of that resolution, that applying to section 19 and the office of Chief Electoral Officer. The amendment which I now propose, and which I may say has been assented to by the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, is as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide in the proposed Act respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the Electoral Franchise (Bill No. 12) now before the House that the Chief Electoral Officer shall be from time to time paid the same salary and superannuation allowance as a puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.
That he shall also be paid his reasonable travelling 'and living expenses while absent from Ottawa on the business of his office.

That is the only change in the resolution. The formal motion to bring that change about I now beg to move and it is as follows:
That the resolution respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the Electoral Franchise adopted on Thursday, the 24th day of June, 1920, be amended by striking out all the words between the words "paid for his service's" in the third line of the resolution as printed and the words "Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada" in the eighth line inclusive and by substituting therefor the following words, "shall toe from time to time paid the same salary and superannuation allowance as a puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada: that he shall also be paid his reasonable travelling and living expenses while absent from Ottawa on the business of his offioe; that any sums payable to him hereunder shall be paid out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada."
I should perhaps explain the object of the proposed amendment. The Bill provided for the appointment of the Parliamentary Counsel of the 'House of Commons to the office of Chief Electoral Officer. II do not know that the matter received as full consideration as it perhaps should have received when that section was drafted. However, upon further consideration of the matter, and after consulting my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, it is now proposed to appoint to the office of 'Chief Electoral Officer Mr. O. M. Biggar, K.C., of the City of Ottawa-a gentleman who is at the present time retained by the Government, in the capacity of counsel, at a salary of $10,000 a year. Under the proposed resolution Colonel Biggar, as Chief Electoral Officer, would receive the same salary as a puisne judge of the Supreme Court. That salary now is $9,000 a year, hut in view of the resolution on the Votes and Proceedings as it appears to-day-'and which, I assume, will be passed-the salary will be increased to $12,000. So that Colonel Biggar as Chief Electoral Officer will be in receipt of a salary of $12,000,-that would be $2,000 more than his present salary. It was proposed in the resolution which passed the committee on Thursday ito grant an allowance of $2,000 additional to the Parliamentary Counsel for his work under the Electoral Franchise Act. So in reality there is no actual increase proposed by this amendment. 'Colonel Biggar, as Chief 'Government Counsel, now receives a salary of $10,000, and when he 'becomes 'Chief Electoral Officer he will receive $12,000.
When clause 19 as redrafted is placed before the committee it will be found that the first charge on Colonel iBiggar's time will he his duties under the Electoral Franchise

Act, and that all his other time will be at the disposal of the Government free. He will not be entitled to take any private practice; his full time must be given to Government work, but the first claim on his time will be in connection with hie duties as 'Chief Electoral Officer.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Will he still act as
counsel for the Government generally?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, in any matters
outside his duties as Chief Electoral Officer. He will be bound to perform without further remuneration any other duties in the way of counsel work, inquiry or the like, which the Government may ask him to perform.


Mr. POWER:: Will he be an employee
of the Department of Justice?


Hugh Guthrie: No, of the House of
Commons.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But as Chief Government
*Counsel?


Hugh Guthrie: He'will be at the direction of the Attorney General so far as counsel work is concerned


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Of the Solicitor General?


Hugh Guthrie: But he shall do all such further work as the Government may instruct him to do. I am satisfied that in Colonel Biggar's appointment we have made an excellent choice. : 1 am perhaps las familiar as anybody with the present Franchise Bill, and I am satisfied that we want a man in charge as 'Chief Electoral Officer who is thoroughly un-partisan, who has youth on his side, who is thoroughly qualified as a lawyer, and who is of a judicial temperament and capable of coming to rapid decisions upon difficult legal problems which will arise under the Act, and I .am satisfied that Colonel Biggar possesses all these qualifications in an eminent degree. The Government has very great confidence in recommending him for the appointment, and it is gratifying to know that the Government's action in this respect .concerning the Franchise Bill has, I think, the unqualified concurrence of my hon. driend the leader of the Opposition.
I have therefore much pleasure in moving that the resolution be 3 p.m. amended as I have read it to the House.


Mr. FIELDING:: What will be the tenure of office?


Hugh Guthrie: As stated in the Bill. This is only the financial clause.


Mr. FRIPP:: Is the Mr. 0. M. Biggar referred to Mr. Oliver Mowat Biggar?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Then it would require some stretch of the imagination on the part of most of us to adhere to the idea that he is non-partisan. I understand that when Mr. Oliver Mowat Biggar resided in Edmonton he was a very active politician on the Liberal side.


Mr. WHITE:: Not at all.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: That is my information. Then I would like to ask the minister in charge why it is necessary to. change from the Parliamentary Counsel, who undoubtedly is non-partisan and who has had a long experience in the service of the Government. I would further like to have some information as to the duties performed by Mr. Biggar in the Department of Justice. If he is Chief Counsel in that department at $10,000 a year, why is it necessary to retain Mr. Tilley to conduct the arbitration proceedings in respect to the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway system?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not very familiar with tho proceedings in connection with the Grand Trunk arbitration, and therefore I do not know that I could give my hon. friend an answer to that question.
I do know from all inquiries that I have made-and I have inquired in a good many directions-that I am assured, and I think my colleagues in the Government have been assured, that Mr. Biggar is in no sense of the word a partisan, and never has been. He is not now and I do not think ever has been actively engaged in politics. So far as his legal attainments are concerned, I think his standing at the Bar is known throughout the length and breadth of the country. I am aware that since the beginning of the year, at all events, his time has been very fully engaged in Government Counsel work-not always before the courts, but in respect to various Government commissions. It has been found very much cheaper for the Department of Justice to employ Mr. Biggar at a straight salary of $10,000 than to employ counsel, as has been the practice for many years heretofore, as and when we require them. I may tell my hon. friend that counsel fees Pave gone up enormously, and it is no uncommon thing to have to pay a fee of $5,000, and perhaps more, in a single case. I think the Government has had that experience. I am satisfied that the salary paid to Mr. Biggar saves a large amount

of money annually to the Government in counsel fees.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: The minister has missed the point. The point of the amendment is that the Chief Electoral Officer shall be given the same superannuation as a puisne judge. When you retain counsel you do not superannuate him; you pay him for the work he does, and that is an end of the matter. Why should this gentleman be given superannuation the same as a puisne judge simply because he is a special officer of the Department of Justice at a salary of $10,000? It is absolutely unfair to the rest of the service to select one man for this favoured treatment. Why should he because he is holding these dual positions be given superannuation the same as a puisne judge of ,the Supreme Court of Canada? It is a new departure, and as far as I am personally concerned I desire to register my protest against it, because if this proposal is carried into effect you leave the door open to other men employed in the Government service the same right to come here and ask to be paid superannuation upon a much higher scale than they can get under the present Civil Service Act.


Hugh Guthrie: This is not a case of superannuation, at all. The object of the Government and, I fancy, the object of the House is to appoint to the position of Chief Electoral Officer a man who is absolutely removed from political influence or control, who is at the beck or call of nobody. In order to have such a man, you mast make his tenure of office secure, absolutely removed from the power of the Government to displace the individual from office. I may say that Colonel Biggar is not an applicant for this position. He ha3 been consulted on several occasions and finally he has agreed to accept the position. He is a young man, an active practitioner, and the salary involved would be nothing to a man of his prospects. In order, however, to secure a man in permanent position absolutely removed from political influence, we have agreed to give him the same tenure of office as that of a Supreme Court judge, with the same salary and the same retiring allowance if he lives to entitle himself to such. That is the object we sought to attain. We are not adding this on to his present duties. We are creating this office by Act of Parliament for the first time in Canada. We realize that after the work is organized, as he will organize it, it will not take all his time. In years when there is

no general election, the work will take only a small portion of his time, and we want to utilize his ability during those off years. This is too large a salary to pay a man for work of this character, unless he has other duties to perform. We intend, therefore, to use his ability as much as possible during all the intervening years when there is no general election, and I think, in the end, we are going to save money by so doing. This will certainly relieve us of the necessity, in many important cases, of employing eminent counsel.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad, indeed, to agree with the Minister of Militia on at least one feature of this law. If we accept the principle that there must be a Chief Electoral Officer, that man must be independent of the Government of the day, and he must be placed 311 such a position as to make him independent of any Government or party. The only way to do that is to place him in the same position as the judges of the land and, therefore, I am in perfect accord with this disposition. I have not the pleasure of knowing Colonel Biggar personally, but I have been told that he is a well qualified lawyer and a gentleman who would not lend himself to anything that would not be just and fair to everybody. I certainly support this resolution.


Mr. BEST:: I am not opposed to the
salary which it is proposed to pay, but I think when an employee of the Government is in receipt of a salary of ten thousand to twelve thousand dollars a year, that ought to be sufficient. Many people living today in Canada have done very much more for this country than many men who are superannuated, and I am strictly opposed to the superannuation of any one. I do not believe in bringing up a race of paupers in this country. It will soon be that all the lawyers will'be superannuated


Ernest Lapointe: That might be better
for the community.


John Best: -and we may later have the doctors superannuated. I am in favour of paying every Government employee a good salary and of letting them take care of what they get and save something for the future. Ninety-five per cent of the people of the Dominion of Canada, if misfortune should overtake them, have no superannuation to fall back upon and they would have to go to the poor house. That being the case, is it any wonder that the common people of this country are rising up to oppose this principle of superannuation? I think it is a great crime. We have to-day in our county

an example of two gentlemen, one of whom has retired and is drawing his superannuation right along and another man who has been appointed and is drawing the same salary, so that we are paying two salaries. I would suggest paying this gentleman enough, if that be $20,000 a year, but do not have any superannuation.


Mr. MORPHY:: I quite appreciate the view of my hon. friend, but I think he is on the wrong basis. It seems to me that the main thing to be aimed at in this particular employee is fixity of tenure of oflice. The point of paying a man $20,000 to avoid the principle of what my hon. friend calls " superannuation " does not apply in this case. In a position of this kind, if the gentleman lives to an age that would entitle a judge to a retiring allowance, it is only reasonable that the country, having paid for his services in the same way as for the services of a judge, should follow the same principle in regard to retiring allowance. I have no doubt that, unless we secure a man who is competent and who is prepared to devote his every energy to the work, we shall get into the same state as the country was in at the last general election. I think hon. members will find their experience was the same as my own, that that Election Act was in a state of chaotic jumble. There is no question about that, and I had to make many inquiries, being unable to solve many of the sections myself. I felt it would have been a great convenience if we had had a central authority, similar to the proposition now before the committee, to whom the candidates throughout the Dominion could have applied by wire and received in return a quick response by wire from a man who had organized the staff, who had studied the law, who had mastered all the details, who has a pre-eminent ability to construe sections of the Act. That would have saved the country a great deal of. heartburning and trouble, and it would have been better for the Government if they had had a really expert man at the head of proceedings at that time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: All the experts were in England.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes, by the way, Colonel Oliver Mowat Biggar was in England doing his bit, as I understand, in the country's interest in the Great War. I should not think that would he anything to his discredit. I believe the principle involved in this is sound. It may be said,
as the hon. member intimated, that the salary is large.


John Best: I did not say that the salary
was large; I spoke about the superannuation.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman will give $20,000 a year instead of $10,COO in order to get rid of the superannuation.
^ Mr. BEST: I did not say that. I said " if it was necessary".


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There was a string to it, a qualification.


John Best: Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: To my mind, if the hon. gentleman meant that, it would cost this country a very large sum to capitalize $20,000 a year if.this gentleman should live long enough to entitle him to a retiring allowance at the end of his tenure of office
As regards the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) I have made some inquiries about Colonel Biggar and I have never heard anything derogatory to him. I have never heard that he was a partisan, nor that he took active part in elections, and as this Act is intended to be a non-partisan Act, a fair Act for all parties in this country, the logical thing to do is to put a non-partisan into the position. I think Colonel Biggar is such a man. I do not think it is fair to assume a man is partisan because he happens to be called Oliver Mowat Biggar. The name is an honourable one.


Ernest Lapointe: The name sounds good.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It was a name with which men used often to conjure, and as we have in the seats of the Liberal-Unionists on this side a gentleman named Mowat who is a nephew of the late Hon. Oliver Mowat, and whom my hon. friend (Mr. Fripp) is content to sit with, surely he can extend the same courtesy and consideration to a gentleman who bears the same name as an hon. member who sits on the same side of the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He will be a judge before long.


John Best: I did not state that I was opposed to a Chief Electoral Officer being appointed; I believe that is the proper thing to do, and I have no fault to find with the man whose name has been mentioned. If the hon. member for Perth North (Mr. Morphy) is referring to the last provincial election in Ontario, then he has a good idea of what has happened in regard to

extreme salaries, insurance and pensions. I would have thought that the Government would have learnt a lesson from that, to be a little careful about pensions. Mr. Biggar may be a good man but I am opposed to any one in this country getting a pension from the Government, and I shall always vote against it. 1 will support the payment of good salaries, but I am wholly opposed to pensions. People who live in the country, after working hard all their lives, and who find themselves through some misfortune without means in their old age, have nothing before them but the county poorhouse, and I can see no reason why this Government should undertake to look after one class of people more than another. Let us pay a man well for his services, but let there be no pensions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend if I am right in understanding that what he is now proposing makes no change whatever from what was proposed in the Bill as originally presented, except as to the person to be appointed. As I read the Bill as introduced by the minister it provides that the Chief Electoral Officer shall hold office upon the same tenure, and be removable only for cause and in the same manner as judges of the superior courts of the provinces. (My hon. friend proposes to leave the Act in that particular just as it is-


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -so that the present proposal of my hon. friend does not affect one way or the other the tenure of office or the salary or any other feature of this provision except that it mentions a particular officer for the position.
In" regard to Mr. Biggar, whose name is suggested, I may say that my hon. friend did mention to me that the Government had in mind asking Mr. Biggar to accept this position. He asked me whether in the event of Mr. Biggar being willing to accept the position I thought his appointment would be acceptable to members on this side of the House, as being that of a type of gentleman in whom in the administration of this Act the country would have confidence. I replied that I had every confidence in Air. Biggar. Let me say, however, to my hon. friend from Ottawa that I men. tioned to the minister at the time that so far as I was aware, Mr. Biggar, at the last election, was a supporter of Union Government. As my hon. friend knows, I

was opposed to the Union Government. If being a supporter of the Government was an evidence of partisanship, Mr. Biggar was certainly a partisan on that occasion. On the other hand I have reason to believe that Air. Biggar in the judgment that he exercised at that time, took the position he did from an independent mind. He took,
I believe, the course which seemed to him right and proper. I have the highest admiration for his character. I think he will prove an honourable and an efficient public servant, and although the fact that he supported this Government in the last election is a misfortune, I do not think that should be held against him indefinitely.
I am prepared to say that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned we have implicit confidence in his integrity and ability.


Mr. CROTHERS:: 
Mr. MACK  IE@Edmonton East: I have not heard all the discussion, hut I heard Mr. Biggar's name mentioned. I am very pleased to say that I am personally acquainted with Mr. Biggar who comes from the city of Edmonton. He has only one fault to my knowledge, and that is that he was a Grit at one time, but fortunately he has ceased to be that. I agree with every word that has been spoken in commendation of him by my hon. friend. Mr. Biggar is a man of courage, of excellent reputation, and of integrity, and I would have ample confidence in him if appointed to this office.
Amendment agreed to
Resolution reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Guthrie the resolution as amended was referred to the Committee of the Whole to be considered in connection with Bill No. 12, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electorate franchise.
On section 19-Chief Electoral Officer:


Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move that
clauses 19 and 20 be stricken from the Bill and that the following be substituted therefor:


The CHAIRMAN:: The first motion should be for re-consideration, by unanimous consent, of clause 20, which has been adopted.


Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move by unanimous consent that clause 20, which has already been adopted, be now re-considered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 20-staff and temporary assistants :
Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move that clauses 19 and 20 be stricken from the Bill and that the following be substituted therefor:
19. Oliver Mowat Biggar, of the city of Ottawa, one of His Majesty's counsel, is hereby appointed Chief Electoral Officer. He shall hold office on the same tenure, ibe removable only for cause and in the same manner and be from time to time paid the salary and superannuation allowance as a puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. He shall rank as a deputy head of a department, shall communicate with the Governor General through the Secretary of State of Canada, and in addition to the exercise 'of the powers and the performance of the duties with respect to elections now exercisable and performable by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, he shall and may,

(a) throughout every election properly direct all returning officers and, in case of incompetency or neglect of duty on the part of any of
them, recommend his removal and the appointment of another in his stead.
(b)	exercise general direction and supervision over the administrative conduct of elections with a view to ensuring the fairness and impartiality of all election officers and compliance with the provisions of this Act;
(c)	report to the House of Commons, through the Speaker, after an election, any matters arising in the course of the election on account of which ought, in his judgment, to be submitted to (the House of Commons, and
(d)	subject to the performance of the foregoing duties, act as counsel for the Crown or the Attorney General in such causes, prepare such opinions, and make such enquiries as the Governor General in Council may from time to time direct.
(2)	The Chief Electoral Officer shall devote himself exclusively to the performance of his duties in the public service.
(3)	The Chief Eleotoral Officer shall be paid his reasonable travelling and living expenses while absent from Ottawa on the business of his office.
(4)	Any sums payable to the Chief Electoral Officer shall be paid out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
(5)	In the event of the death of the Chief Electoral Officer while Parliament is not sitting, or of his inability or neglect to perform the duties of his office, a substitute shall, upon the application of the Secretary of State, be appointed by the Chief Justice of Canada, or in his absence by the senior judge of the Supreme Court of Canada then present in Ottawa. Upon his appointment such substitute shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Chief Electoral Officer in his place and stead until fifteen days after the commencement of the next following session of Parliament unless the Chief Justice of Canada, or the judge by whom the order appointing him was made, sooner directs that such order be rescinded.
(6)	In the absence of both the Chief Justice of Canada and of any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada by whom a substitute for the Chief Electoral Officer has been appoint -
. ed the order appointing such substitute may be rescinded by any other judge of the said court.
(7)	The remuneration of a substitute Chief Electoral Officer may be fixed by the Governor General in Council and shall be part of the general expenses of the election or elections, if any, held during his tenure of office.
Assistant Chief Electoral Officer.
20. (1) Excepting the Chief Electoral Officer and one assistant, to be known as Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, and two stenographers, all of whom shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council, there shall be no permanent officers or employees appointed or paid to perform any duties in connection with elections. The Chief Electoral Officer shall from time to time select and appoint such temporary help as he may require for the proper performance of the duties of his office, first, however, submitting to the Auditor General the name and proposed salary payable to the temporary appointee and obtaining a certificate that such salary is reasonable and that funds are lawfully available for the payment thereof. All such appointees shall be discharged forthwith upon completion of the business of the election for or during which they respectively were engaged.

(2) The Assistant Chief Electoral Officer shall rank in the classification of the Civil Service of Canada as a Head Clerk.
Clause 20 in substance is as it was printed in the Bill, but it has been revised and is more workable in its present form. There has been no change in section 19 except in regard to the appointment of Mr. Biggar and in a precise definition of the duties which he will be expected to perform. In other respects the general tenor of the section remains.	*


William Stevens Fielding: I did not quite catch
the section as read by the minister. How is the permanent successor to Mr. Biggar to be appointed?


Hugh Guthrie: He would have to be appointed by Parliament, but there is a provision for an interim appointment, in case of Mr. Biggar's death when Parliament is not sitting.


William Stevens Fielding: It seems to me that the machinery with regard to this appointment is not very well indicated.


Hugh Guthrie: I am advised that when a man is specifically named in a statute in the way in which this Bill is drawn there is no power save parliament to appoint a successor. That is the advice I have obtained from Mr. Biggar himself who drew the section.


William Stevens Fielding: That would mean by
Act of Parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: It would have to he
by Act of Parliament-


William Stevens Fielding: Not even by resolution of the House of Commons?


Hugh Guthrie: -in which the Senate must concur.
Mr.'FIELDING: Well, it does not appear to me that the machinery is set out clearly enough.


Hugh Guthrie: This clause, and particularly this aspect of it, has been very carefully considered. It has been pointed out that, in the event of the death of Colonel Biggar, there is no power to appoint a new Chief Electoral Officer but Parliament, which would be the Senate and the House of Commons, and we must therefore provide for an interim appointment in the event of his death before Parliament met. That is the object of the clause.


William Stevens Fielding: The machinery for the interim appointment is clear enough, but I would have thought it necessary to indi-

cate as clearly as possible by whom the permanent appointment is to be made. However, if the minister has received legal advice on the question I suppose it is all right.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the legal advice I have received.


William Stevens Fielding: I must say, however,
that on the face of it it does not indicate how the appointment is to he made. Those who have a knowledge of constitutional law might be able to discover the method, but the ordinary man could not.


Hugh Guthrie: I presume that if an
appointment is made by statute no change can be made except by Parliament itself.


William Stevens Fielding: A constitutional authority may know that but the average man, I venture to say, would not be able to gather the fact from the Bill.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: In regard to the provision for the filling of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer in case of his death or temporary inability to discharge his duties, it occurs to me that instead of this roundabout procedure of having the appointment made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a man who might not know very much about the matter, we might safely provide in the Bill that the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, for whom this Bill makes provision, should act in his stead. He would be familiar with the work, and if he filled the position during one election he would be very much better qualified to discharge the duties than a new man who might be chosen by the Chief Justice. This would involve no additional salary nor difficulty and I think it would simplify matters and generally save considerable expense.


[Stage Direction]
Sections agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: The Bill has been very carefully revised since the other sections were passed, but there are still some de-feots in it which might be regarded as clerical errors, although some of them are rather more than of a clerical nature. The law officers have pointed out to me that a number of formal amendments will have to he made to correct these errors. It is proposed to have the Bill printed with all the amendments and to have twenty copies, so printed, distributed before the third reading. I should like the committee to return to clause 76 for reconsideration.


Georges Henri Boivin: That clause was not passed.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I move to amend it as -follows:
By striking out the first sub-clause, by substituting tor the first five lines of sub-clause two the following words. "Upon the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Governor in Council may make a tariff of fees, costs, allowances and expenses to"; by striking out subclause three of the said clause and by printing in Roman characters that portion of the clause which is now printed in italics, With the exception of the wird "General" after the word "Governor" which should be stricken from the clause.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. -GUTHRIE: Consequential upon the last amendment, I move that Schedule Two be stricken from the Bill an-d that "Schedules Three and Four" be accordingly renumbered "Schedules Two and Three respectively.
Schedule 2 is the tariff of fees for returning officers.
Amendment agreed to.
On section 100-advance polls for railway employees and others :
Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend clause 100 by substituting for the words "Schedule Three" where they appear in the fourth, fourteenth and sixty-ninth lines of the said clause, the words "Schedule Two."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 39-disqualifications of candidates.	.
Hugh Guthrie: In line 38 at the foot of page 28, subclause (b), I want to insert before the words "any person" the following words: "The member of the King's Privy Council holding the recognized position of First Minister." That is a section which provides for the disqualification of candidates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I suggested that should go in.


Hugh Guthrie: Somebody suggested that, but it was omitted. Mr. Gisborne called my attention to it and/ sent me this amendment. I therefore beg to move:
That section 39, subclause (b) be amended by inserting before the words "any person" in the third line of the said subclause the following -words: "The memjber of the King's Privy Council holding the recognized position of First Minister."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 32-preparation of lists of voters:
Hugh Guthrie: At the last sitting of the committee we struck out the words "and schedule B." We should not have stricken out "schedule B." It was done under the impression that we had struck out Rule 4, but we subsequently restored Rule 4. It is necessary that schedule B shall remain. I therefore move to amend clause thirty-two by -substituting for the words "Schedule A" in the thirty-third line on page fourteen of the Bill, the words "Schedules A and B respectively."
This will restore the words originally printed in the Bill and which were stricken out by a recent amendment.
Am-endm-e-nt agreed .to.
On section 29-qualification of electors:


Hugh Guthrie: Since this clause was adopted a new Naturalization Act -has been passed Iby this House and it is now -before the Senate. -I-t will be- necessary -to amend this clause to make it /applicable to the new situation which has arisen by reason of the new Naturalization Act. That Act has not yet been- finally assented to. This -clause has been prepared by the law officers of -the Crown. I have pub-mifted it to- my hon. friend from North Waterloo- (Mr. Euler) and he approves of it. I move to .amend clause twenty-nine by inserting /after the words "The Naturalization Act" in .the form contained in sub-clause -two of the -said clause the figures "1920" .amid by substituting for the (words "paragraph (B) of subsection four of section eight o-f "The Naturalization Act," chapter thirty-eight of Ithe statutes of 1919, (first session) where they a-ppear at -the end of the clhuse the follo wing -words: "subsection- two of -section- seven of The Naturalization Act, 1920."
With /this amendment .the proviso a-t the end of the clause will read -ais follows:
Provided that no disability imposed by subsection two of section seven of "The Naturalization Act, 1920," shall disentitle a -person on that ground alone to the said certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 32-preparation of lists of voters:
Hugh Guthrie: /Subsection 11 reads "any register, -additional register" etc. I .move to amend clause -thirty-two by striking out in -the first line of tenb-el'a-use (11) on page sixteen -of the Bill, the words "additional registrar." These words (should not a-ppear there.
Amendment agreed -to.


Hugh Guthrie: I move ito amend schedule A 'to section thirtyJbwo by striking out from the first line of ruffe (3), on page seventeen of 'the Bill, the words "and additional registrar" .which were 'added to 'this rule by a recent amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend schedule B to 'section thirty-two Iby inserting ait the end of rule (2) on page twenty-two of the Bill, after the words "to this Act" the following words:
The name of a married woman or a widow shall be entered in the index book under the first letter of the surname of her husband, or deceased husband respectively.
We put these words in for schedule A but noit for schedule B.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On 'section 33-when' new list of voters unneceisairy:
Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend clause thirty-three by inserting in the second line of subclause (3) the words "and to the revising officers"; by inserting in the fourth line of subclause (3) the word "print"; by striking out from the last line of subclause (3) the word "rural" where it was inserted by a recent amendment before the word "registrar"; by striking out from the second line of su'bclause (4) the word "rural" where it was inserted by a recent amendment before the word "registrar" and by inserting in the third line of subclause (4) the words "or revising officer".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 63-name not on list, etc.:
Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend clause sixty-three by striking out in the fifth line of subclause two the words "or either of them" which are not required and which were added by mistake in a recent amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: That completes my
amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend and the committee will agree to reopen section 10 I would like to suggest an amendment of which I spoke to my hon. friend' some weeks ago.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is an amendment respecting the publicity of funds used for political purposes. Section 5 of the Bill as it stands provides for the identification of the printers and publishers of

election advertising. Section 10 provides that companies are not to contribute for election purposes, and makes 'it an offence for any company to
"loan, advance, pay, or promise or offer to pay any money or its equivalent to, or for, or in aid of, any candidate at an election, or to, or for, or in aid of, any political party, committee, or association, or to or for, or in aid of, any company incorporated for political purposes, or to, or for, or in furtherance of, any political purpose whatever, or for the indemnification or reimbursement of any person for moneys so used/'
Section 76 of the Act, regarding election expenses provides that no payment is to 'be made except through an official agent who must account for and1, publish all contributions that have been made by different parties toward the expenses of any candidate. Now I think these sections read together clearly show that Parliament has in mind making public to as large an extent as possible contributions for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election, but I am not sure that as construed in the past these sections 'have been interpreted to include advertisements or articles appearing in magazines, or other publications, such as newspapers which are paid for by private individuals or corporations, but which do not disclose on the face of them that they are paid for, and therefore are really in the nature of contributions for election purposes. The amendment therefore that I would like to suggest to section 10 is this. To amend section 10 of the Bill by providing that:
Every advertisement, article, notice, illustration or cartoon appearing in a newspaper, magazine, pamphlet, leaflet or other publication, and having reference to an election, if printed at the expense of any individual, firm, committee, association, society or corporation other than the individual, firm, committee, association, society or corporation which is the printer or publisher thereof, shall disclose that such advertisement, article, notice,, illustration or cartoon is being paid for by such individual, firm, committee, association, society, or corporation and shall bear the name and address of the person or persons paying, or agreeing to pay, for the publication thereof.
Any person printing, publishing, or distributing any such advertisement, article, notice, illustration or cartoon, or causing any of such to be printed, published or distributed otherwise than is provided in this section is guilty of an offence against this Act punishable on summary conviction as in this Act provided, and if he is a candidate or the official agent of a candidate is further guilty of an illegal practice.
The House will see that if the section is interpreted in the loose way in which it has been in the past there is nothing in the Act to prevent "big interests"-shall I say? corrupting public opinion at the source

by spending large sums of money in paying newspapers to print articles which when printed would appear to the public to be from the pen of the editor, or the proprietor, or of some one employed on the paper, but which in reality are simply paid campaign literature. Now, I do not go so far as to say that any corporation or individual shall not have the right to insert in any publication any views or expressions of opinion in the nature of campaign literature which they may wish to present and pay for ; but I do say where such contributions are made during an election for the purpose of influencing the electorate, all such matter paid for in that way should show on its face the fact that it is paid for by the particular person or corporation that is contributing in this manner to the election of a candidate or candidates, or to the support of a political party. I think the amendment is one which will appeal to hon. members as being wholly in the public interest, and I hope it will meet with the acceptance of the committee.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not opposed altogether to the principle involved in the suggestion, but it ic pretty far-reaching, and I would not like to say offhand that I would approve it in the form submitted by my hon. friend. I have not had any opportunity of discussing the question, or of examining it, and I would rather that a matter of such great import as involved in this amendment should be left over until we can give it further consideration. I think there is something to be said in favour of compelling a man who inserts paid advertisements in newspapers to have it-stated some place on the advertisement that he has paid for it. I have known articles to appear as news articles which were paid advertisements and in some way or the other they were misleading; but this is a sort of omnibus affair. I think if one paper copied something from another paper, or if I took an editorial from the Ottawa Citizen and had it published in the Toronto papers I might be liable to disqualification, and also to heavy penalties, if I did not state at the bottom of the article that I was paying for its insertion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not under this amendment as drafted.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know, you read it for yourself; it is too big a proposal to consider offhand. I do not want either to condemn it or to approve it. It is a pretty late hour to bring this question in when
we discussed it at an earlier stage. Very little discussion took place on it, but we did discuss it, and when we did I thought for one that the matter had been dropped. However, my hon. friend has brought forward this amendment. What I would suggest to him is this: Let the Act pass. We are going to have a by-election in the course of a month or two under this Act, and we will see from that election how it works out. If there is necessity for this amendment, bring it up at the next session of Parliament and have a thorough discussion of it. I would not like to commit myself or the Government-I would not seek to commit any one in the House-until I have pretty thoroughly gone into it. On the whole T am not opposed to the principle but I would not like to accept it without further consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection to the minister taking whatever time he wishes to consider this amendment, but I do most strongly object to having this Bill pass without having the committee consider it one way or the other. I regard this amendment as more important than any section of the Bill respecting contributions for political purposes. Unless the minister is agreeable to having it considered, I shall not only press it now, but shall also press it on the motion for the third reading of the Bill. It is directed wholly towards the protection of the public against the corrupting of the press by large business interests and the influencing of the electorate in a manner which is highly contrary to the public interest. I have no objection to the amendment standing until the third reading.


Hugh Guthrie: I will agree to that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think if in
the meantime hon. members have an opportunity of studying the amendment they will approve of it. I was surprised to hear my hon. friend say he thought it was dropped, because I was most emphatic in declaring that I intended to introduce it. I recall that my hon. friend said when I spoke to him of the amendment that he thought it followed the law in New York State, I have reason to believe that it does follow some law in that State as well as similar laws in a number of other States. It is simply a means of precluding large and powerful wealthy interests corrupting public opinion at the source by inserting articles in the newspapers during an election-it is confined to that period-articles which are in-

tended to mislead the public, but which would not succeed in so doing if their source were disclosed. I might ask the minister what is his objection to having the matter stand in committee and considered at a further stage?


Hugh Guthrie: I want to get the Bill
out of committee, if possible. It has been a very long time in committee. I think the first suggestion of my hon. friend to move his amendment on the third reading is a good one. Or, if he likes, let the committee pass on it now. I am prepared to adopt either course.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not see any special reason why this Bill should get out of 'Committee to-day more than any other Bill. I think the suggestion to allow the Bill to remain in Committee is quite reasonable, for it will give the Government and hon. members time to consider the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: It must he borne in
mind that this is a pretty long Bill, and it has yet to go through the Senate. I am prepared to agree to my hon. friend's proposal to discuss his amendment on the third reading; or I am prepared to discuss it now. There is nothing else to hold the Bill in committee, and I would like very much to hear discussion on this amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might point out to my hon. friend that if the moment at which I am moving this amendment is late it is owing to the fact this is the first opportunity I have had of submitting an amendment of the kind since the Bill has been in committee. It is not at all the fault of any of us on this side of the House that we have reached the end of the session with the Bill not through committee; that is wholly the fault of (the Government. On the other hand, I am as anxious as my hon. friend to see the session brought to a close with as little delay as possible. I realize, in view of what my hon. friend has said, that if we voted on the amendment now it would be for the purpose of defeating it.


Hugh Guthrie: That would not prevent my hon. friend moving it on the third reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to have the amendment defeated even in committee, because I think it is one which if hon. gentlemen read they will find to be very much in the public interest. I am quite prepared to allow it to stand over until the third reading. [But I hope in 
the meantime hon. members will read the amendment as it appears on Hansard, and if possible, on the third reading give it their sympathetic support.


Hugh Guthrie: I am quite agreeable not only to study the amendment, but to consult my colleagues on it. It may be we will agree or disagree. But in the meantime I think the Bill should get through committee in order that its further passage may be facilitated.
Bill as amended reported.



THE FRENCH TREATY.

[Stage Direction]
On motion for Committee of Supply:
^ Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX (Maisonneuve): Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I would like once more to call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the question of the French treaty. I know that my right hon. friend is quite prepared to answer any remarks I may make. I wish only to discharge a duty, and I know that my hon. friend, if I have not been able to give him any notice, can answer at once-
Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Maybe my hon. friend will allow me to tell him what the present position is, and then he may not ifind it necessary to make a speech on the subject.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As I gathered from my right hon. friend that he has a re-assuring statement to make I wish to yield to him.


George Eulas Foster: I am sorry the House wil not have an opportunity to hear a speech from my hon. friend, but at this late date of the session I suppose we all wish to avoid set speeches. My hon. friend and the House itself, I think, know pretty well what the situation has been with regard to the French treaty. It has been denounced and it went out of operation on the 19th day of June. Some negotiations have been passing since, and a proposition has been made to the French Government by which in return for a reasonable compensation of import duties on lines of articles exported from Canada the French Government will be given the benefit of the intermediate tariff, and thus be put on the same footing as those nations which at the present time enjoy that benefit.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Shall we get from the French Government a continuation of the privilege of the minimum tariff? I am in-

formed that if suggestion is made by the Canadian Government to the French Government of giving under a new treaty the benefit of the intermediate tariff to French exports we might have from the French Government the benefit of their minimum tariff. My right hon. friend understands the very great importance of this subject in view of the large exports from Canada to France. The denunciation of the treaty, I regret to say, has threatened to dislocate that trade. But as my hon. ifriend states if there is a possibility of getting an arrangement by which benefit would be taken of the intermediate tariff, well and good. I suppose that is the best bargain my right hon. friend has been able to secure.


George Eulas Foster: That is all we
can do.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion for Supply:
Mr. ,T. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough): Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to be allowed to draw the attention of the House to a matter I regard as of very great importance, and that is the delay in connection with the placing on the table of this House of the Auditor General's Report. For several .sessions past the law which requires the Auditor General's Report to be laid on the table of the House within one week of the opening of the session has been disregarded.
George Eulas Foster: Does my hon
friend intend to carry on the discussion or is he just asking a question? I think if Saturday follows Friday as to the orders-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion for taking
Saturdays only called for the order of business to be the same as on Fridays or on Thursdays. It did not make applicable to Saturdays the rules which are applicable to Thursdays and Fridays; therefore under a ruling which was made two years ago, a motion is required on Saturday for Committee of Supply.


John Howard Sinclair: I was not sure about the rule, hut my right hon. friend did not observe the rule about five minutes ago-


George Eulas Foster: I was answering a question.


John Howard Sinclair: -and I followed his example. I was referring to the fact that the law requiring that the 272
report of the Auditor General be placed on the table of the House within one week of the opening of the session, has been neglected or disregarded by the Government for several years past. It will be within the memory of my right hon. friend that some years ago the fiscal year was changed *so as to enable the Auditor General to have his report ready in the month of October in each year. The report brings us up only to the 31st March of the previous year, so that it was estimated at that time that there would be ample time between March and October to prepare the Auditor General's Report and have it ready for the House, provided that the House met in November. Plans at that time were made for the session being held in the fall. The House did not meet this year until February, but the report was not ready when the House met. Section 48 of chapter 24 of the revised statutes reads:
Such accounts and the reports of the Auditor General thereon shall be laid before the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance on or before the 31st day of October next, following, if Parliament is then sitting, or if not sitting, then within one week after Parliament is next assembled.
That is the law. I wish to point out how it has been carried out during the present session. The House met on the 26th February; but the first volume of the Auditor General's Report was placed on the Table, not within one week of the opening of the House, but on the 19th March. The second volume was placed on the Table on the 25th March; the third volume was placed on the Table on the 25th April, and the fourth volume, which contained all contentious matters, was not placed on the Table until the 14th May. This made it impossible for the Public Accounts Committee to do their work. The House had been in session for nearly three months before the complete set of the Auditor General's Report was placed on the Table. The committee could not, of course, perform their duties without the report, and in this way the whole business of the Public Accounts Committee has been nullified for the present year. This is a matter of great importance, and I was very much surprised, in looking into the matter a few days ago, to find that the law had been disregarded altogether by the Government, not only for the present session but for several sessions past. I went back a few years to see how the former Government had done their duty in that respect, and while I did not go into the details, I looked up the year 1907-08 and



found that on the day of the opening of Parliament in that year, some time in the month of November, one volume of the report was placed on the Table; a second volume was tabled within three days and a third volume within a fortnight of the opening of the session. There were only three volumes at that time, whereas at the present time there are four. There can be no good reason to delay the presentation of the report for such a long period as it has been delayed during the past two years. It came to my notice that the trouble is not in the Printing Bureau; that the trouble is in the Finance Department, because I know, as a matter of fact, that the last of the copy did not reach the Printing Bureau until the 6th April, so that it would be impossible for the Printing Bureau to do their work unless the Finance Department had done its work providing the Printing Bureau with the copy. Therefore, as I have said, this is a matter which should not occur again, and I mention it so that the leader of the Government can draw the matter to the attention of the proper parties and see that when Parliament assembles next year the Auditor General's Report will be ready and the law will be complied with.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The right hon. gentleman is not entitled to reply, but I am sure, under the circumstances, the House will give him a little consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: A little latitude. What the hon. gentleman states is no doubt true. It struck me, however, as he went through with his statement that he is very hard to satisfy. When a man gets one volume, very large and bulky, and then shortly afterwards, gets a second volume, equally large and bulky, and then shortly after that, before he certainly has had time to digest the other two, a third one is thrown upon him, one would think most mortals would have been quite well satisfied with what had been served up to them and would not have been so anxious for the fourth and final di6h to be set on the Table. It is, however, the right of my hon. friend and the House to have the Auditor General's report. But my hon. friend failed to dbserve the fact that the Auditor General is a Parliamentary officer, and although he is connected with the Finance Department, it is not quite right, I think, to hold the Finance Department or the Government responsible for the time at which he gets

his report through and ready for the printer. It is, of course, the duty of the Government to carry on business properly and to see that all reports are brought down as soon as possible. I will specially bring the attention of the Auditor (General to the matter, and as my hon. friend has taken it for granted that this Government will have an opportunity of being questioned another year as to why the Auditor General's report is or is not down at a certain time, I will see that the proper statement is laid before the Auditor General so that he may be hurried up as much as possible. I notice my hon. friend, looking for precedents on his own side, out of fifteen years was cautious enough to venture only upon. one, and he happened to find a favourable one in that respect.
Mr. AROHAiMBAULT: May I point out to my right hon. friend that the first three volumes of the Auditor General's report are practically only routine; the fourth volume is the most important and it contains the most contentious matter.


George Eulas Foster: The first three
are educative.



TRADE BETWEEN CANADA AND NEWFOUNDLAND.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion for Supply:
Mr. iD. I). McKKENZIE (North Cape Breton) Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, as I may not have an opportunity later on in the session to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I wish to say a word to him in connection with the arrangements between Canada and Newfoundland in regard to the carrying trade or transportation between, say the terminus at North Sydney and Port aux Basques and or city of St. John, Newfoundland.
George Eulas Foster: That will be an item that I propose to take up as soon as we go into committee, and perhaps the discussion could take place then.
IMr. McKENZIE: If there is any item in the Supplementary Estimates I did not notice it.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What I wanted to point out is this. It is being contended that the transportation between Port aux Basques and the port of North Sydney is not sufficient to meet the immense volume of traffic. I would ask the min ster if there is any arrangement in contemplation

whereby the Government would put one or more of its own steamers in the service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, or between North Sydney and St. John. The minister is aware that the volume of business between various ports of Canada and Newfoundland is very large indeed, and that we have keen competition from American ports and American cities all the time. We have still only a comparatively small portion of the Newfoundland business as compared with the immense volume that goes to the United States. We have been doing very well for the last twenty years, but I feel that through the derangement of traffic facilities between the terminus of the Government railway at North Sydney and Newfoundland we may suffer a setback, and that would be much to be deplored. It is not a local question, because the larger centres of Canada with which Newfoundland is trading have much more at stake than we have in the port of North Sydney, but the conditions are much more apparent there than to a man Jiving away from the terminus of the road, say at Montreal or Toronto. I wanted to bring this matter to the attention of the minister and I am very glad to learn he has been giving it consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Steele in the Chair:
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- Canadian Atlantic ports and Australia and New Zealand, steam service between, $140,000.
['Oh, no. The\nhon. gentleman is quite right.']
George Eulas Foster: This is the same service as in former years.


Mr. NESBITT:: Is there a regular service between New Zealand and Canada?


George Eulas Foster: This is from the Atlantic side. It is for a monthly service, and is being renewed for another year at the same rate. The service is carried on by the New Zealand Shipping Company. During the past two or three years it has kept up as well as it could the con inuitv o' he service, but the service has been irregular because of the impossibility of gett'ng ships. It is expected that this year they will be able to carry out the service regularly and give us a monthly voyage.
Canada and Newfoundland, steam service or services ebtween. $35,000..


George Eulas Foster: sk>
'flair -as our exports Do Newfoundland are oomoanmed. ,
With reference 'to 'the trade with New-fouBdlainid, iit is molt ia.ll indicated by any means by thait line of traffic between Sydney iand Port aiux Basques, because there are other steamship services carrying traffic from Camadia to Newfoundland and carrying baick fish and other products. Prom Halifax Ithare has been and is now regular service to- Newfoundland ports1, 'bult since the vessels of Canada's Mercamltile Marine have been launched -very ioonsideraible additions of fleet carrying capacity have been made on that line and are now supplying ithe service between Newfoundland ,and 'the Canadian 'ports. From Itihis time out a very considerable addition will be .miade to Ithe carrying fleet between Canada and Newfoundland by the servioeis of the Mercantile ^Marine vessels.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to- direct the minister's attention to the fact that for a good many years, I do not know how many, the vote for the service between Port Aux Basques, Newfoundland, and the terminus of the Government railway at North Sydney was $70,000, and this year it has been cut in two. I think it will appeal to the committee that under present conditions, with coal costing three times what it used to cost; when engineers, deck hands, and all the contingencies that appertain to a steamer are three times more expensive than they were in former years, and when the demands upon the service are heavier than ever they were before, calling for a greater degree of efficiency than in the past; It is somewhat difficult to understand how the Government expects to get for $35,000 the service which was rendered before for double that amount. One would imagine that the Government would be only too glad to get along without any increase in the subsidy, and it is rather inexplicable how they can hope to accomplish with $35,000 what formerly $70,000 was just sufficient to provide. I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister on several occasions and I was wondering whether there would be a substantial item in the Supplementary Estimates that would increase this amount that is provided here. If there is an item in the Supplementary Estimates-


George Eulas Foster: There is not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not notice any item. I do fear that this service will be-
TSir George Foster.]
come demoralized, and the Read Newfoundland Company cannot possibly on this small subsidy give the service which they used to give. As regards the statement that the company are selling their boats, I do not profess to- have any knowledge in the matter, but my. information is that these steamers were commandeered as a war measure. They were taken from the company. Any steamers required for the Russian 'Government were obtained through the agency of the Imperial Government, who took 5ver these vessels from the Read Newfoundland 'Company, paying for them, of course, and passed them over to the Russian Government. The minister is perfectly aware that during the war it was extremely difficult to get steamers built. The Read Newfoundland Company are very enterprising. They have very great difficulties to contend with, but Sir Robert Read, the founder of the company, and his sons are men of great energy and industry. They have to contend with weather conditions in Newfoudland, snow, ice, etc., and it is exceedingly difficult for them to carry on business. The trade on the island has its disadvantages; there are large tracts of unsettled land, dreary wastes and barren soil, and the people have to battle with the snow all winter without many breaks by way of cities or towns that render difficulties of this kind less formidable. This is the condition with which they have to grapple, and there is the further fact that their steamers were taken over. They have never got back to a ]ire-war basis and I do not think they have succeeded in getting new steamers built. They have some fairly good steamers. The Kyle is a very good boat but possibly it is the only firshclass steamer they have. The people of Newfoundland have nothing else by way of transportation facilities than the Read Newfoundland Company. For good or for ill, it is the best they have, and while [DOT] one might contend that there is no obligation on us to look after conditions in Newfoundland, we must bear in mind that those conditions exist and that it is well that they should be improved in view of the fact that we have established a large trade with that Dominion. The National railways connections are through the agency of the Read Newfoundland Company. I think we should hesitate before striking such a blow at this subsidy as will be likely to demoralize the trade conditions that have arisen between ourselves and Newfoundland through the agency of the Read Newfoundland Company during the last

twenty or twenty-five years. I remember the inception of this traffic far better than I recall the operations of any line of traffic in Canada, because when this tiaffic first commenced it was so small that we as a town at North Sydney undertook to carry the produce that came from Newfoundland from the steamer to the railway station, a distance of about a mile. The Tail did not go to the water then, and we undertook to carry the goods free of charge in order to start up this trade. So that as a town North Sydney is very much attached to the development of this trade and would be sorry-indeed the whole of Canada, I think, would be sorry-to see anything happen that would disrupt present conditions. I can only place the facts before the minister, as no doubt they have been placed a dozen times before, and urge that the Government and he himself change their ideas in regard to this matter and restore the state of things that existed heretofore. Let me repeat that it is difficult to understand why the Government, in view of the greater increase in the cost of co il and everything else that enters into the operation of steamers to-day, should reduce by half a subsidy which in years gone bv was considered just ample.


George Eulas Foster: I have given a
good deal of attention to this matter. In the first place, the $70,000 subsidy was probably pro rata, the highest subsidy we paid anywhere in Canada for similar service. It was higher by a very good percentage. Then we must recollect that the chief difficulty in the matter of transport between Canada and Newfoundland is not on the Canadian side nor so much in the passage between Sydney and Port aux Basques, which is about one hundred miles, if I recollect aright. The trouble is on the island of Newfoundland itself. The railway is not in a position to facilitate the transportation of goods. It has happened over and over again that after these vessels leave Sydney with freight they come back carrying a portion of that freight because they cannot find discharge for it on the other side. The facilities for storage are not what they should be and not what the Newfoundland railway would like them to be. That would be the case with the transport after you left Port au Basque. If we are to carry that service on we cannot devote a large subsidy to the inefficient passage of a couple of vessels between Port au Basque and Sydney which cannot find on the other side accommodation to discharge their freight. We
will have to get that freight carried to Newfoundland in some other way. Our own vessels are affording that some other way at this time and if the railway company is not able to get better boats and not able to carry on land what the present boats offer to it at Port au Basque, our own mercantile marine will be in a position, we hope, to carry freight to other Newfoundland ports and directly to Placentia or St. Johns. There is a very large traffic. In 1919 about 13,000 first-class and 7,000 second-class passengers were carried. Of freight there were 17,000 or 18,000 tons less carried during the last four or five years. That was largely owing to the fact that the railway was not in a position to carry all the freight that was offered. I would be sorry to see any of the necessary facilities for carrying our freight to and from Newfoundland diminished and I am sure that the facilities will not be diminished but we cannot afford to pay more than the amount that has been put in the Estimates for the service they can give us taking into consideration the congested state of their railway line from Port au Basque to St. Johns.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	I presume the Canadian mails between North Sydney and Newfoundland are carried without any further contribution than the subsidy. The-Canadian mail between Newfoundland and North Sydney is a very large proposition. Mhat arrangement has been made about the carrying of the mails in view of the cutting down of the subsidy?


George Eulas Foster: The principle I am trying to introduce is that the post office must pay its own way and that for the majority of these services that are really important the commercial subsidy is supplied by the Department of Trade -and Commerce and the Post Office Department must make arrangement for its own mail. It is doing that now and in a short time I hope that policy will be carried out through and through. It is now being carried out entirely on the Atlantic and it is being inaugurated on the Pacific. If that policy is adopted there will be an extra payment for the mails on their own poundage or space value.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's, P.E.I.):: Just
to correct an impression that may have been given by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) in referring to the services between Sydney and Newfoundland as the only service between these points, I may say that we have now a regular service between Charlottetown and St.

Johns, by the mercantile marine. It would be well for the minister to keep that in view because it gives a direct service toy a Canadian line whereas, in giving a subsidy, we give a subsidy to the Read-Newfoundland. Company, which is a company tied up with the affairs of Newfoundland. Under the system which I refer to we are keeping up our own service, employing our own means of carriage and helping ourselves. It would be well that I should say for the benefit of any shippers whose attention may be directed to this discussion in the committee, that there is now a Canadian line through Charlottetown from any point in Canada direct to St. Johns Newfoundland which will help to relieve the congestion that exists at the larger ports on account of the want of facilities.
Canada and South Africa, steam service between, $146,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How often does that
steamer ply?


George Eulas Foster: This is a service which has been running for eight or ten years. It is >a monthly service. It has been carried on during the war somewhat intermittently buit not at all subject to the fluctuations which were noted as occurring in the Australian service because the contractors were able to secure vessels and to move the traffic with much more regularity. Now there is no difficulty about it and it is a monthly service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that not the Elder
Dempster line?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is more than eight or ten years old. It was inaugurated under the Laurier Government.
Sir 'GEORGE FOSTER:	Well we have
had a longer service than I at the time thought. That service has been a very satisfactory one and trade and trade interests with South Africa are constantly being advanced and are on a very satisfactory basis at the present time. This same line inaugurated a direct service with West Africa and although we are not paying any subsidy for the West African service we are getting a monthly service to South Africa and also a monthly service to the west coast. I may say that investigations made and information obtained disclose very excellent prospects of opening up trade between Canada and the west coast of Africa and the Gold Cbast. We have very good friends there who were formerly West Indian administrators. One of them is now

administering in Gambia and the other- who has just left Ottawa having been in attendance at the West Indian conference- has been nominated as the administrator on the Gold Coast. Both of these are very strong friends of Canada in the matter of the interchange of products between their countries and ours.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: Would the minister kindly explain what products we get of theirs in exchange for our products? What products of ours do they require?


George Eulas Foster: Our trade with Africa is very largely in exports and not so much in imports. Trade is carried on by what you might designate as "a one-passage service." That is the vessels go from here carrying our exports to the African ports, and then they take cargoes from there and work back, triangularly or otherwise, to Canada, and continue on with their service. The amount of our imports from South Africa is not at all in proportion to the volume of exports that we send them. That works to our advantage because it redresses the balance of trade generally with that country. We are sending to South Africa agricultural implements, calcium carbide, automobiles, paper, lumber, cereal foods, chairs, wooden ware, beaver board, nails, condensed milk, locomotives, cardboard, shovels and spades, cement, and a varied line of other articles.
Victoria and West 'Coast, Vancouver Island, steam service between, $5,000.	<


John Flaws Reid: May I ask which company receives that $5,000?


George Eulas Foster: The Canadian Pacific Railway Company are the contractors.
Vancouver and northern ports of British Columbia, steam service between, $16,800.


George Eulas Foster: The Union Steamship Company are the contractors in this *case.
'Charlottetown, Victoria and Holliday's Wharf, steam service between, $2,500.


John Ewen Sinclair: I
would ask the minister if he has considered making any provision for an increase of this subsidy.
Sir 'GEORGE FOSTER: I have looked into the matter as carefully as I could and I have not been able to carry an increase for that service this year.


John Ewen Sinclair: I
would like to point out that under the conditions that obtain in connection with this

service it is almost necessary that some increase should be given if it is to be maintained. The cost o-f maintaining the Holliday's Wharf service has increased about threefold in the last five years. I know that representations have been made to the minister on the subject and1 I am really sorry to hear him say he cannot see his way to contribute in part towards this service, especially as the Provincial Government have assisted by raising the subsidy that they give to it. The freight rates have had to be raised and I think if my hon. friend had softened his heart a little and augmented the federal subsidy that 'by means of these three agencies it would have been possible to continue the service. I fear that under existing conditions it will be hard to keep it up at the present time.
'Sir GEORGE FOSTER: All I can say is that I am quite sympathetic.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not quite sure whether this is the appropriate time to raise the point, but I would like to ask the minister if he has considered,-in connection with the matter of communication between Montreal, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland,-the advisability of having these ships stop at Summerside, P.E.I.


George Eulas Foster: The Mercantile Marine is putting on a service of one or two boats regularly between Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and is providing for the Prince Edward Island service. At what ports the vessels will stop I cannot tell my hon. friend from memory but I will make inquiry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to point out to my hon. friend that the citizens of 'Summerside are most anxious to have some stop made at that port and I would like him to favourably consider their request if possible.
Halifax and Newfoundland via Cape Breton ports, steam service between, $10,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I see the appropriation for this service has been cut in two.


George Eulas Foster: This is the Farquhar Service.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the service going on in the old way?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Captain Farquhar used to have two steamers on the route.


George Eulas Foster: This is a continuation of the old service for which the
contractors received last year $10,000. I cut the vote down one-half in my desire to make some answer to the appeal of the Minister of Finance as to keeping these appropriations within a smaller figure. But on taking the matter up again and going over it I thought it was only fair to add something, and so in the Supplementary Estimates there is provision for a part of the remainder.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it so appointed1 that the regular trips are being made?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the Government is operating a railway service between Halifax and the important points of the island. I do not understand the necessity for subsidizing a steamship service. Of course if this service is necessary, I withdraw by objection.


George Eulas Foster: It is an old established service, and the boats call at Jedore, Owl's Head, Tangier, Hopes harbour, Ship harbour, Sheet harbour, Sober island and other ports. But I think my hon. friend is referring to item 177.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: My hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) must have forgotten that western Cape Breton island has no railroad connections, and therefore it is necessary that the shore connections should be continued from Halifax.


William Stevens Fielding: That is also true of
some of the ports mentioned by my Tight hon. friend (Sir George Foster); they are quite distant from any railway communication and have to rely on steamers.


Mr. BUTTS:: If I am not very much
mistaken, there are boats along that very course subsidized by the Provincial Government of Nova Scotia.


George Eulas Foster: It is true that the Government of Nova Scotia subsidizes nearly all these services in * co-operation with the Dominion Government.
Mr. McKHNZIEi:	The hon. member for
Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) spoke of the service on the west coast of Cape Breton; item 178 covers that service, which is necessary because there is a very large stretch of country from the strait of Canso around to Cape North with practically no railway communication. But I am not clear as to the usefulness of the service covered by item 177. I cannot quite appreciate why a steamer should go from Halifax to the Bras d'Or ports, as there is very good railway

communication, and there are two or three boats on the Lakes themselves, some of which boats are handsomely subsidized.
iSir GEORGE FOSTER: I think my hon. friend would probably get some enlightenment in regard to that item if he talked to the Halifax merchants and to their customers. A number of these ports get the service of more than one steamer, but that is only a partial service, and then these boats carry on also to other ports that are not touched by the services with which they interlock. It is a most complicated system. I started in with the idea of stopping duplication, and I have1 been at the work for the last eight or nine years, hut I have found it pretty nearly impossible, because one line of argument is that when you build a railway you do not want any ship service; and the other is just what I have mentioned. Whilst we have succeeded in cutting out quite a lot of duplication, some still remains, I cannot see any better system than we have there now, unless we drop the whole th'ng, and then I know what a howl there would be from members representing those districts and also from interests outside. I try to be as fair as I can and to keep things running along. It is true that my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) living in Sydney, to which the railway could bring all possible things needed, might start out with the assumption that that was the point of supply an I distribution for the whole of that section, but he would find, if that were applied, economic and traffic reasons which would bear somewhat heavily upon the steamers in the end.


John Flaws Reid: Does any
arrangement exist between the federal Govern,menu and the provincial government in regard to these subsidies? Is this business run at a profit or at a loss, and is it really necessary to continue these subsidies? It seems to me that it is perhaps a long established custom and very hard to break away from. Perhaps if some arrangement was entered into between the provincial and federal governments the federal government could be relieved of these subsidies.


George Eulas Foster: I would like my hon,. friend to try and work that out. Unfortunately the provincial governments have a decided objection to carrying the whole burden. Then, too, during the last two years the cost of service has very greatly increased. The service of which my hon. friend has just spoken, ought not on general principles to be subsidized by

this government at all, for it is really confined to the waters of Prince Edward Island; but we have always helped to carry it on and it is a service which is useful and to a certain extent is necessary.


John Ewen Sinclair: I am sure
my right hon. friend cannot refer to Northumberland strait as being within the province of Prince Edward Island.


George Eulas Foster: I was speaking of Holliday's wharf service.


John Ewen Sinclair: Victoria is up the Northumberland strait on the coast of Prince Edward Island, so it is not wholly within the province.


George Eulas Foster: I was referring to the service up and down those wonderful Arms.


John Flaws Reid: My right hon. friend forgot to answer that part of my question as to whether these s rvices are run at a loss? I am refer:ing to those covered in items 170 to 176.


George Eulas Foster: We get returns from all those companies showing the amount of their revenue from freight and subsidies and I can assure my hon. frined that the credit balances are not making those companies rich. On the contrary, in most cases they have all they can do to just squeak along. It would be a very great deprivation to the people down there in subsidies and I can assure my hon. friend miles away from a railway to deprive them of their only means of receiving and forwarding fre ght. Therefore, we have continued the service on as economical a line as we possibly could.


John Flaws Reid: I did not catch whether the minister said that the companies referred to return annual balance sheets to the minister.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, always. If my hon. friend wishes to verify that, if he will go to my department, will find all those returns.


John Flaws Reid: I take the minister's word.


George Eulas Foster: That is right.
Steam service between Quebec and ports on the north or south shores of the gulf of St. Lawrence, and Or between ports in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the Magdalen Islands, $70,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I want to say just a
word or two on this item. I understand the subsidy has been removed this year with

the Gulf of St. Lawrence Shipping and Trading Company, and that they have chartered two new boats, that is, two of ithe old Government steamers, one the Champlain and the other the Lady Evelyn. I understand that the Lady Evelyn is going to make a service between Quebec and Gaspe, calling at intermediate ports on the coast of Gaspe. It is very important that this service should be well managed. During the last three or four years, unfortunately, there has been only a very inferior service, a boat by the name of A. Tremblay was chartered, which was an old boat propelled, of course, by steam, but giving really a very inferior service. There was no accommodation for passengers; it was only, so to speak, a freight boat. This year, although the people on the coast have been promised that ithe Lady Evelyn will be put on the service, the Lady Evelyn has not made its appearance at the various ports, and I have received (from my electors many complaints which I have sent to the department of my right hon. friend. I understand, however, this is due to an accident which happened to the Lady Evelyn, and that she will now soon reach her destination. So much is for the cause of Gaspe.
I am interested also in the service between Pictou and the Magdalen Islands. The subsidy was given to the same company for the service between those two points. I cannot speak with too much vigour on behalf of my electors of Magdalen Islands, which, form in the gulf of St. Lawrence a very interesting and important group. The Magdalen Islands are inhabited by a population of 7,000, a very hardy and respectable people, mostly all of them being Acadian fishermen. They belong to the great fishing community, and since time immemorial they have given in the commercial world a very good account of themselves. But they require facilities to ship their goods to the mainland of -Canada, especially Nova -Scotia and New Brunswick. The chief business of the Magdalen Islands, although this group otf islands belongs to Quebec, is done with Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. They, therefore, require at the distance where they are in the gulf, good steamship facilities. Last year and since the beginning of the war, the steamer service was very inferior. But this year they have the Champlain and it is a good boat, and if properly handled, I know it will give my electors a proper service.
I wish to tell my right hon. friend that the people of Magdalen Islands should not
be mulcted by excessive freight or passenger rates. I understand there is a contract with the company, and (that there is a schedule of rates, which schedule has been raised. I -hope my hon. friend will have some regard) for the poor fishermen of Magdalen Islands who are fighting against nature in order to give him fresh fi-sh and to give the centre of Canada the best fresh fish. They are far away, and during seven months of the year they are isolated, although at my request some years ago, we established the Marconi system, and furnish the Magdalen Islands with daily reports from the mainland. The people of those islands deserve that; tout for their business they must have a continuous service of steamers in the summer and fall of the year. I trust my right hon. friend will see to it that, now that we are reverting quietly to normal conditions, the fishermen of Magdalen Islands will be given an excellent service.


George Eulas Foster: Probably there
is no service in the whole range of services which come under my department that has caused the department and myself more anxiety or to which more sympathy has been given than this service. War conditions made it impossible to get vessels of the right type. We have not had a vessel of the right type, although probably this contract may bring it, since the vessel which was run by, I think, Captain MoClure, some time ago, which was specially adapted to that service. Last year there were difficulties and accidents happened, but I think my department, the Department of Marine and Fisheries -and the Department of Railways have done everything possible to help out the unfortunate circumstances in which the inhabitants of the Magdalen Islands were placed.
There is one suggestion which I have made to the local government and that is that it would be the part of wisdom for the local government, which is to a certain extent the parent of the localities, to make arrangements, by financing or in some other way, whereby the actual supplies that- are necessary for the carrying on of the fishing work would be got in in good time. As it is now, the people do not order their supplies until the very last moment, and; they .miss it sometimes just by the last moment, the moment being no moment at all. Some conditions of temperature arise very suddenly and their supplies cannot be taken in, or not in- sufficient number. If there could be an arrangement whereby working capital could be furnished by the Quebec

Government! and orders for supplies be placed early before the vicissitudes of climate make transport impossible, it would do much for the economic and social comfort of that community. I have not received any answer from the local government with reference to that proposition, but if the municipality and the local government could work out an arrangement of that kind I feel that it would alleviate the situation very considerably.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is something, no doubt, in what my hon. friend suggests, but the gist of the whole difficulty, as my hon. friend will appreciate, is transportation. That is the vital point. Why should not the Federal Government give to a group of 7,000 Canadians in this far-away zone in the Atlantic the transportation facilities to which they are entitled? These people are taxpayers of the Dominion and they are entitled to this accommodation. We are buildt-ing a large fleet of commercial steamers, some of which are to be put in service between Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. I say that our own people, Canadians, are entitled to first service on the part of this Government. I do no't begrudge the service between Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, but the Magdalen Islands are a group of islands in Canada, and they should have the first service. I do not say that in a carping spirit at all, but I would humbly suggest to my hon. friend that one of these boats that are being built with the money of the Dominion, of which the people of the Magdalen Islands contribute their fair share, be put in service for the people of those islands.
. My hon. friend says that in the fall of every year, and sometimes in the spring, there is an S.O.S. call from the people of the Magdalen Islands for provisions and fishing supplies. It is true, and I am bound to say that the Government has been very kind to these people, but they do not want to be continually begging from the Government, and we can do away with begging if we provide them with a steamer service from Pictou. The captain of the Stanley the government ice-breaker, is my authority for the statement that under ordinary circumstances you can run a boat between the mainland and the Magdalen Islands nearly all the year round without the slightest risk, and that there are perhaps only two or three weeks in the winter when there is any element of risk. The captain of the Stanley was ready to take the risk even during that period. Generally speaking, the service could be run nearly all the year round if a

proper steamer was put on the route. Where is the Stanley to-day? Is she still in existence? The Stanley could have run on that service perfectly well. Once more I would draw my hon. friend's attention to the importance from a commercial and economic point of view of that group of islands.


Alexander William Chisholm: Do any of these boats that are running between Quebec and Newfoundland call at any point in Cape Breton?


George Eulas Foster: I do not think so.


William Stevens Fielding: I would call my hon. friend's attention to an omission, which I think is purely accidental, of a small service between Froude's Point and Lockeport, connecting with the town by railway. I feel this has escaped my hon. friend's notice owing to its being such a modest sum; it is only $1,000. I am sure its omission is an error, and I would like my hon. friend to look into it. I have heard of no representation against it.


George Eulas Foster: 1 will tell my hon. friend exactly what has occurred. This Dominion Government has been subsidizing, amongst other services, a number of small ferries between points not far distant from each other. This particular ferry my hon. friend speaks of runs about three-iquarters of a mile.


William Stevens Fielding: More than that.


George Eulas Foster: There were one or two ferries in Quebec in much the same position. I took the ground that it was not the part of the Dominion Government to carry on ferry services betwen two points in a province closely adjacent to each other, and I cut them all out. The provinces should carry on these ferry services themselves. Then the Dominion Post Office requires a service. With reference to that and others that have been cut out, the Post Office will make its arrangements for carrying mails and will pay whatever amount they decide on. I think I appeal to the good sense of the House when I say that I do not think the Dominion Government should be subsidizing short ferry lines between adjacent points in a province. That is for the province itself to take care of.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken when he describes this as a ferry of three-quarters of a mile. The principle he is laying down, if it is a good one, will cut out a number of appropriations. I am quite sure he is not apprised of the facts in regard to this particular one. It is three or four miles from the railway and connects

the railway station with the principal town in that section. It is important and must not be regarded as a short ferry at all. It is an important commercial artery whidh is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of communication between a large town and the railway station, and if my 'hon. friend says that everything of this sort is to be called a short ferry he will have to revise his whole list, because he will find a number of such cases. He is evidently under the impression that this is a ferry of three-quarters of a mile, but he is entirely mistaken; it is three or four miles. This is a matter concerning which I recently called the attention of the Minister of Railways to the desirability of having a branch line built, and when I tell my hon. friend that it is the only channel of communication between the railway and one of the most important towns on the south shore of Nova Scotia I think he will realize that the impression which he has formed is altogether wrong. I should be glad if he would give the matter further consideration because he cannot justify his present stand. No doubt the modesty of the items has secured its present fate. If it were $10,000 it would be renewed.


George Eulas Foster: If it had been
$10,000 it would be an ordinary service.


William Stevens Fielding: I must tell the minister that this is a matter that should not be treated lightly. It will be regarded as one of a very serious nature by those who are affected.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	It does not seem very
clear what are the stopping places in the round trip provided for in item 187. It seems that a boat goes from the Magdalens to Newfoundland, calling at Prince Edward Island. If a steamer goes from the Magdalen Islands to Newfoundland she passes right by the island of Cape Breton and should certainly call there. iShe would stop there for coal anyhow. It is a place from which a lot of traffic could be carried to the Magdalen Islands and produce from that place and the other stopping points could be brought back. I think it would be a grave mistake not to provide that the steamer should call at Cape Breton, because in any event she goes right by the Island. The steamer passes within a few miles of the mouth of Sydney harbour, in crossing to Newfoundland, and it would be an unfortunate mistake not to have Cape Breton included as a port of call. It would be an advantage to the people of Newfoundland who might want to take that steamer on the
way to North Sydney, and the people of Prince Edward Island might also want to go there. It would divert the steamer from its regular course to a very slight extent, and I would suggest to the minister that he consider this matter.


George Eulas Foster: T cannot find thiait she calls alt any Cape Breton port.
Mr. MeKENZIE: Then the minister ought to see thiait she does. Possibly !the contract ba|s molt ydt been made, and-


George Eulas Foster: Yes, Ithe contract is made. The contract is one that (was made for a series of years and it does not fall in until 1923.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Can the minister give me some information with .reference Ibo the contract between the Gulf of St. Lawrence Trading Company-I think that is the name -and 'the Government? Was there not some reference in Ithe contract .to certain obligations with regard to bringing cheaper fish to the city of Quebec and to Montreal?


George Eulas Foster: I think there was.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Has the minister 'any information las !to what were 'the 'terms of 'the contract and 'whether iltis conditions were fulfilled?


George Eulas Foster: I have noft the information here, tout I have e disltinet recollection that in making arrangements for the contract one of the considerations was that it would help facilities for the carrying of fish in .a state of preservation to Quebec .and possibly Montreal, tout particularly up to Quebec. It was for the purpose of furnishing such facilities and equipment .as would make that possible. I am quite sure that was part of Ithe contract, tout I have no further information here.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Does the minister know whether or not in, past years this contract has been carried out? '


George Eulas Foster: I shall make inquiry and inform my hon. friend.
St John and Digby steam' service between,


Mr. WIGMORE:: I had this matter before- the department and 'the minister 'will observe that (there is a decrease of $10,000. Now, this company have enjoyed a subsidy of $20,000 for a number Of years. The service has been Very much improved and I believe that even during -a number of years when they were only making four trips a week they still enjoyed (that subsidy. Today, with a cost of maintenance at least

100 per 'Oanlt greater ithan it was in previous years, the subsidy has been reduced ito $10,000. Taking up tins malt tier with ilhe manager of 'this: line, I fiend thaft there is very grave dd-ubt whether (the company /will sign the contract 'far $10,000. If that 'be the ease, it will mean itihiait they will run the boat for their awn convenience 'and there will mot 'be daily itirips between St. John <and Digby. The service will comee-quemltty he veiry much decreased and it is an impotent one, connecting 'the Canadian Pacific railway from Montreal to St. John [DOT]and Ithe Dominion Atlantic, of what is now known as Ithe Canadian Pacific, 'from Digby to' Halifax. I ishould .reallly like the minister to give further consideration to this matter because it is absolutely necessary What a daily service should be continued, but I am afraid this will not be done unless the subsidy is increased to $20,000, which was the amount paid in former yeans. Besides the carrying rtf mails on 'the steamer, it is necessary, when 'the boat arrives in St. John, to transfer the mails from the steamer to the poet office oir from the sterner to the train. This service costs the company a large amount olf money, at least 100 per cent more (than it did a Ifew years aigo. Altogether there is very little left out of ithe $20,000, after a certain amount is paid out far 'the transfer oif mails, and I can readily understand why they would not be very anxious to feign the agreement at all at this reduced figure. If the agreement is not signed 'the Government will have to pay a very much larger amount for 'the carrying of ithe mails in some other way.


George Eulas Foster: On the whole of . these mail subsidies I was hound to make a substantial reduction, and on the whole service I have reduced' the total considerably. I considered, having carefully studied the matter, that this was one of the services on which a reduction might be made; and that a subsidy of $10,000 instead of $20,000 will be sufficient to carry on the service. This is the service between St. John and Digby. It is a service also between two main points on the Canadian Pacific and is really the connecting link not on land but on water of the service of the Canadian Pacific railway in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There is a large traffic between - these two points. The number of passengers -carried last year was 38,000 and the tons of freight 28,000 or 29,000. The mails have been carried as well. It therefore did *seem to me, and I so stated to the Canadian Pacific authorities, that they would have

to submit to a cut and might also have to submit to a cut in two or three other water services that I discussed with them. At that time they did not raise any objection to a cut in so far as my memory goes, nor have they since, to myself or the department, but if I am not mistaken some one has been talking to my hon. friend. I do not think the Canadian Pacific will allow that service to depreciate. It is essential with their connection 'between the two great portions of their line in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They have carried it on splendidly up to the present. They have a good boat and I hope they will carry on the service. If not we will have to see what can be done.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: It is the best service
we have ever had on that line.


George Eulas Foster: No doubt.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I have been told by
the manager of the line that they will not accept $10,000. If they refuse to sign this contract does the minister not think that it will cost him more than $10,000 to carry the mails? Some may think that they are receiving this $10,000 for carrying the mails but a very large portion of it is paid out for the transfer of the mails from the steamer to the post office and from the steamer to the train. It is quite true that this is a connecting link between St. John and Digby but there will be a great number of times in winter when they would not have enough freight or passengers to warrant them in continuing it as a daily service. If they receive $20,000 I believe1 they will be prepared to sign up for another year but I doubt very much if they would agree to ' sign the contract for $10,000. Therefore, we will not receive the service that we have been receiving during the last two or three years.


George Eulas Foster: There might be something equitably done by making an arrangement under which the Post Office Department should receive and deliver their own mails at their own cost. I will take that up with the post office and the railway.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I think that if the minister would do that it would be favourably recived.
Sydney and. Whycocomagh, steam servee between, $4,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is the oldest
steamship service w'e have in 'Cape Breton and certainly if not the best it is as good as

any and more deserving. I think, even at this late hour, I am justified in telling the minister the history of the service. In the old days if a man wanted to go from Sydney to Boston, Halifax or St. John, he would have to start from Sydney, take the steamer to Whycocomagh, drive 35 miles to Port Hood, take the steamer from Port Hood to Pictou and there get the train. That was the route travelled from Sydney to Halifax and this is part of that old route. The steamer is doing splendid work in the Bras d'Or lakes every year and I am only sorry that it is not getting more money. It is not making any money. I see that another service in Cape Breton is getting $14,000. If I had to give a conscientious opinion on the matter I would say that these votes should be reversed and that this steamer should get more than she is getting. I hope that in another year the subsidy will be increased.


George Eulas Foster: That is a strong bid for local support.
Sydney and Bras d'Or lake ports, and ports on the east and west coasts of Cape Breton, steam service between, $14,000


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Where does this boat
call?


George Eulas Foster: It starts at North Sydney, right at my hon. friend's doorstep, and goes to Baddeck, Grand Narrows, East Bay, Big Pond, Irish Cove, Johnston's Harbour, Marble Mountain, St. Peter's, Gran-dique, Poulamond, L'Ardoise, Arichat, Mul-grave, Hawkesbury, Hastings, Port Hood, Margaree, Grand Etang and Cheticamp, returning to Sydney and proceeding thence to Gborous, calling at Port Morien, Main-adieu and Louisburg. These are familiar household names to my hon. friend.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How often do they call at these places?
Sir GEORGE FOSTER It is a weekly service.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: She calls .at Margaree; where is her next call coming around the northern end of Cape Breton?


George Eulas Foster: From Port Hood she goes to Margaree, from Margaree to Grand Etang and from Grand Etang to Cheticamp.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And then?


George Eulas Foster: She turns around as any good boat ought to, and gets home.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Let me tell the minister that in going home-he is quite
familiar with the old term-" One must needs go through Samaria " some time. This boat must necessarily traverse that section of the coast between Grand Etang and Sydney harbour. Passing along the coast she should enter the harbour of In-gonish, which is an important one, and then go up to Neil's harbour and St. Ann's harbour. It is important that she should call at all these places. Whoever made out the schedule of the ports at which the steamer should call had no regard at all to that 120 miles of coast in Victoria county. The boat puts into Grand Etang, in Inverness county and then passes along the coast without calling at any of the places which I have mentioned. I am sure that was not the purpose or intention of the minister, or of the Government in subsidizing this service. There is a lot of traffic along that coast in the summer time, and we should have the benefit of this boat calling at the ports to which I have referred.


George Eulas Foster: I will look into the matter. I want to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that in the appropriations for steamship subsidies I have been able to make a saving of a little over a million dollars. Whether I have cut these Estimates too strongly or not I do not know.
On the motion of Sir George Foster progress was reported and leave granted to sit again this day.



[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Henry Drayton, Bill No. 211 to confirm certain borrowings under the Demobilization Appropriation Act, 1919, was read a second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: When this Bill * eceived its first reading the question was raised by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that the form of the measure was not proper, in that it left entirely blank all reference to the amendment. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the hon. gentleman and now beg to move-confirming the point which he raised and with which I entirely agree-that clause one of the Bill be amended by striking out the words " any sums" in the first line thereof and inserting the words " a sum not exceeding three hundred and forty million dollars " in lieu thereof.


Mr. McKENZIB:: Will the minister explain how that $340,000,000 is made up?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It represents
the excess of subscriptions over and above the amount of the loans that were subscribed. That has been taken care of in the past. It was done last year by making provision in the Act for a new loan. This year there is no legislation enabling loans to be made, and by the present Bill we are merely validating the over-subscriptions that have taken place.
Amendment agreed1 to and section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported and amendment read a first and second time.


Georges Henri Boivin: Sir Henry
Drayton, by unanimous consent moves that Bill No. 211 to confirm certain borrowings under the Demobilization Appropriation Act, 1919, be read a third time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell the House returned to the order of Routine Proceedings.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the third reading of Bill No. 158. to amend the Income War Tax Act, 1917, being called:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, before the third reading of this Bill I desire to move some amendments which will necessitate a reference to Committee of the Whole. The amendments are entirely non-contentious. I therefore move that the order be discharged and that the Bill be referred back to Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boiviln in the Chair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The first amendment, Mr. Chairman, is on page 2 of the Bill in subsection 2 (a) of section 7, where a typographical error will be noted-the word "to" after "per cent" should read "Of." I therefore beg to move to amend clause 7 by striking out the word "to" in

the thirty-sixth line on page 2 of the Bill and substituting the word "of."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: By an error,
which was not noted at the time, subsection LI of section 10 places the incomes of nonresidents in exactly the same position! as those of residents, which of course would be a very Tadical change and something that was never intended. What was desired was to get from the agents of non-residents full particulars of their principals' income for the purpose of seeing that income properly taxable should be taxed. In order to carry out the intention as expressed I beg to move: That subsection 11 of section 10 be amended by striking out all the words after the words "outside of Canada shall" in the 18th line on page 4 of the Bill and substituting therefor the following words, "make a return of such income, and in case of default by such non-resident of the payment of any tax payable shall, on being so notified by the minister, deduct the amount of such tax from either the income or other assets of such non-resident in his hands and pay the same to the minister." It is a policing provision and does not enlarge the liability of the non-resident.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Then an amendment to section 16 I desire to briefly explain. We have always taxed stock dividends, and in order to remove all doubt that stock dividends were to be taxed and that everybody was to be treated in the same manner, the House has simply declared that dividends shall include stock dividends. Section 3 was therefore enacted this year in these words:
Dividends declared or shareholders' bonuses voted after the 31st day of December, 1919, shall be taxable income of the year in which they are declared or voted.
That was the form in which it was submitted to the House. The words "declared or voted" were struck out in committee and the section made to read "paid or distributed." It has been pointed out that the section ought not to come into force at the present minute, because if it did earnings which were earned for years past and not distributed would be taxed an the basis of income for the year. For example, a company-and we have this particular matter before us-with a capital of $200,000, which has been engaged in business for about twenty years, has accumulated shareholders' reserves amounting to $1,200,000. It

is desired to reorganize the company and to divide the reserves among the shareholders. Under the Act as originally passed the division of the shareholders' profit, whether it is divided in cash or in stock, would be taxed, but taxed only in so far as profits are concerned for the years in which we have taxable provisions. Now, under section 3 which I have referred to, after this no matter when the money ie earned all undistributed funds will be regarded as income of the particular year. But it is felt that an opportunity should be given to companies to divide profits which were made long before we had any income tax laws, and the amendment therefore that I desire to move will deal with section 16, because that is the section which specifies when the different provisions of the Act shall come into force. Accordingly I move that subsection 4 of section 16 be numbered subsection 5, and that the following be inserted as subsection 4:
Section 3 shall come into force on the first day of January, 1921.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported as further amended, Tead the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the third reading of Bill 183 to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, being called:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make some amendments in this Bill, and for that purpose I move that the order be discharged and that the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the Bill.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I beg to move an amendment to a paragraph on page 8. Hon. gentlemen will recollect that jewellers have not to pay any specific tax on any particular article they sell, but they pay a tax on the whole turn-over. Numerous representations have been made from various parts of the country on behalf of the tobacconists. Tobacconists and others have to pay a tax of 20 per cent on pipes sold of a value in excess of $2.50. Jewellers handle pipes to some small extent, and although it was not thought important, apparently there is now a danger of the pipe trade being taken away from tobacconists
and given to jewellers, and that was something that was never contemplated. I, therefore, move to amend clause 2 of the Bill by inserting after the word "except" in the twenty-eight line on page 8 the following words: "Pipes selling in excess of $2.50 each." The result of the amendment i>s that the special tax oin pipes selling for over $2.50 is continued whether a pipe is sold by a jeweller or any one else.


Joseph Archambault: Does this mean that the tax on pipes will be 20 per cent whether they are sold by a jeweller or a tobacconist?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Joseph Archambault: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: The matter at one time stood somewhat in the way in which the hon. gentleman intimates-, but it has already been covered. Fountain pens now are taxable only when of a value in excess of $5 each.


Joseph Archambault: But the discrimination exists just the same. Whether a fountain pen is a luxury or not does not always depend on the value of the pen. Ordinary large fountain pens are worth sometimes $7.50 or $8. Fountain pens are only luxuries when they are made of gold or silver. A five dollar pen is not always a luxury; indeed, in many cases, it is a necessity. I suggest that an amendment similar to the one which the minister has moved in regard to pipes of a value of $2.50 each, should be moved in regard to fountain pens.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Another matter that has been brought to my .attention is in regard to the clothing item. Journeymen! tailors, regular merchant tailors, have filed statements dealing very exhaustively with the cost of made-to-order clothes. They complain that there is a large difference between a made-to-order garment and that of a ready-made suit. They also complain that at the prices now suggested, proper, reasonable wages for journeymen cannot be paid. Undoubtedly there is a difference

between the cost of a journeyman tailor-made garment and a factory tailor-made garment, and the department has been studying what a proper adjustment would be. So as to give proper protection to those working in tailoring, I move to amend clause 2 by inserting after the words: "in excess of $45." in the third line on page 9 the following words: "provided that on clothing covered by this item made to the order and measure of each individual customer by a merchant tailor or journeyman tailors in his employ, the tax shall be payable on the amount in excess of $60."


Mr. CAHILL:: Of course, the minister
recognizes that in this, as in a great deal more of his legislation he is now adopting class legislation that protects the interest of the wealthier classes, so that a man who can afford to go to a tailor and pay $59 for a suit is not taxed, whereas the poor man, who has to pay, say $46 for a suit, in a retail store, must pay a tax. This is in conformity with the minister's previous Bill; it is in conformity with the Government's legislation. The minister knows as well as I or any one else that a man who can afford to pay $59 for a suit of clothes is just as much entitled to be taxed as the man who cannot afford to pay more than $46. The minister knows that a made-to-order suit costing say $59 is much better made and probably of better material than a ready-made suit costing $42 or $43 in a retail store. But this legislation is in keeping with the minister's legislation ail through the Budget proposals; it is class legislation protecting the interest of the wealthy people as against that of the ordinary or poor people of the country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not any idea that I will be able to convince my hon. friend, but there is a difference between a man and a machine; at least, I always thought so, and I had an idea that as we have good journeyman tailors, members of first-class unions that to-day are working pretty hard against the machine, some consideration should be given to them. There is no doubt that we should help to control prices in these taxes, but there is also no doubt that the same measure of control cannot well he accorded to an article which *costs from fifty to sixty per cent more to make than the cheaper article.


Mr. RINFRET:: Has the minister received any representations as to raising the minimum price on "hats, bonnets and hoods, women's and misses', in excess of $12 
each?" When the resolutions were first introduced into the House the amount fixed on men's hats was $5, on caps $2, and on women's hats, $12. An amendment was made to the resolution raising the price to $7 in the case of men's hats and to $3 instead of $2 in the case of caps. Representations have been made by merchants that the price of women's and misses' hats should also be raised from $12 to $15. I shall not move an amendment at this stage but I would ask the minister to be gallant and make this change.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There was no penalty provided in subsection (7) on page 11. I therefore beg to move to add after the word "paid," on line 39 on page 11 of the Bill, the following words:
And the penalty tor neglect or refusal to obtain a license shall be a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars which shall be recoverable upon summary conviction.


Frank S. Cahill: Does that apply to retailers?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That section
deals with whiskies, medicinal articles, excise taxes, automobile taxes and the like.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There was a discussion in the House, I believe, as 10 whether these taxes could not be collected by stamps in order to save the immense amount of accounting which it was alleged would be necessary. Investigations have been made with a view to ascertaining whether stamps could be used or not and the department have come to the conclusion that in a large number of cases stamps could be used. To provide for this, it is necessary there should be a penal provision in connection with the non-affixing of stamps. I therefore beg to move to amend the Bill by adding as clause 4 the following:
4. (1) Every person who being thereto liable, refuses or neglects to pay the taxes prescribed by sections 19BB and 19BBB of this Act, or if such duty is payable in stamps neglects or refuses to duly affix such stamps and to duly cancel the same, shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty equal to not less than ten times the amount of such duty hut in no case less than fifty dollars.


Frank S. Cahill: That only applies to the vendor, of course?


Henry Lumley Drayton: II do not know that it would only apply to the vendor. It

is the duty of the vendoT to see that it is done, but I can imagine a case -where the vendor and purchaser might be acting in collusion, and where a charge might possibly he laid against both. The hon. gentleman is quite right,- however, the primary intention is to make the vendor liable.
Mr. 'CAHILL:	The minister would not
say that every time a man goes into a store to purchase goods, he would have to look up the Act to see whether it was being complied with or not?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, no. The
hon. gentleman is quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as amended reported, and read the third' time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in 'Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Ohair.
Naval service-To provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, $300,000.
Mr. BALLANTYNE:: I move that the
committee consider 'alt the same time in conjunction with this item, item No. 512 in the Supplementary Estimates for the year ending MaTch 31, 1921, reading as follows:
Naval service-To provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy-further amount required, $1,700,000.	.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I might explain to
the committee the reason why the item in the Supplementary Estimates is for $1,700,000 instead of $2,200,000 as I stated it would be when naval affairs were under discussion in the House a few days ago. I said then that with an item in the Supplementary Estimates of $2,200,000 the total maintenance oosit for our reorganized navy would be $2,500,000. Inasmuch as the Rainbow and the iNiobe are going out of commission as depot ships, and the cruiser and destroyers will not be here for possibly a month or two, it will be obvious to hon. members that we cannot require as much money for this fiscal year as we shall foT the coming year, and therefore I have deducted from the Supplementary Estimates the sum of $500,000. The amount now appearing in the Supplementary Estimates is $1,700,000, making -a total maintenance coislt for naval purposes this year of $2,000,000.


Mr. DUFF:: Mr. Chairman, I ,am sure
we are all very much pleased indeed to learn that the Minister of Naval Affairs 273
(Mr. Ballantyne) is able to see his way clear to reduce the Supplementary Estimates to the extent of $500,000. Whilst, of course, we have to accept his explanation of this reduction, I think there is another reason for his having decreased the Estimate to this extent, and that is the fact that we put up such a good opposition the other day in discussing the matter. For that and other reasons I now propose in my own feeble way to endeavour if possible to convince the House that instead of voting $2,000,000 odd for naval purposes this year we should' vote only the exact amount required to settle up naval matters in Halifax, Esqui-malt and elsewhere; and we should sell off the Niobe, the Rainbow and other ships and generally clean up the nasty, dirty mess in which matters stand at present. On the 14th of June we had the pleasure of listening to an excellent speech delivered by my esteemed friend the Minister of Naval Affairs, and after the hon. gentleman had concluded his address, I made the suggestion that I thought it would be in the interests of the country to defer further consideration of the item under discussion at the time so that the House and the people of the country might have an opportunity of thoroughly digesting the minister's speech. My hon. friend very graciously acceded to my request, and after I had made a few remarks he moved' that the committee rise. And we are again proceeding with the Estimates to-night.
I intend to offer objection to the present proposal on three grounds. First, I do not think that we can afford a navy. Second, I think that what the minister proposes to do now or in the future will be inadequate for defensive purposes; and, third, I am convinced that public opinion is strongly adverse to the proposal, and we certainly should lend an attentive ear to public opinion.
As I say, my first reason is that we cannot afford to spend on naval affairs the money which the minister asks us for. Not only can we ill afford to 'spend this m-oney, but in my opinion we cannot afford to spend the money which is necessary to demobilize the present so-called navy. In what position do we find ourselves to-day? At the present time our gross debt, if I remember rightly, is somewhere between two and a half and three billion dollars, a staggering liability for a country of small population like Canada as regards population, and ability to pay. What are our expenditures for this year? If any hon. gentleman will look at the Estimates as submitted to the



House-both the Main Estimates and the Supplementary-I think he will find very grave cause for serious reflection.
'The Main Estimates, if my figures are correct, amount to the stupendous sum of $537,000,000, and the Supplementary Estimates *as brought down yesterday or to-day amount to another $62,000,000. And, Mr. Chairman, iif what we hear around the corridors and in statements made by hon. members and on the Votes and Proceedings is true, "the worst is yet to come." Now, these two amounts total some $600,000,000 which the people of Canada will have to pay in taxes this year. I think that after listening to the Budget Speech of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) every hon. gentleman in this House should deem it his solemn duty to guard very carefully every vote which is made for the public service, and if it is at all possible to effect a saving in regard to 'any particular service it is the duty of every member who is imbued with a sense of responsibility to see that that saving is made. In my humble opinion we certainly could save most of the money which the Minister of Naval Affairs is asking us to vote to-night, and it is our duty at least to endeavour to persuade him to save it. In the Estimates which we are to vote we find that we have to raise the sum of $142,000,000 to pay interest on the debt and to provide for a sinking fund; on pensions, *to protect our wounded soldiers and to take care of the widows and orphans of the gallant men who fell in the war, we have to raise another $27,000,000; in the Militia Department we intend to spend $12,500,000; in regard to Railways and Canals, no less a sum than $57,000,000; whilst for demobilization, to clean up war work, we have to spend the sum of 39,000,000. Oif course, most of these items are necessary. Railways, like the poor, we have always with us; and we cannot escape the liability which has been forced upon the country in that respect. We must also shoulder our responsibility in connection with the returned soldiers. We must demobilize them and pay them off, and I am sure that every man and woman in the country, if the present condition of the country's finances were not so deplorable, would not only spend $27,000,000 but twice that amount. As I have repeatedly stated, however, we should certainly not spend one dollar more than is absolutely necessary to-day, and in view of the tremendous demands that are being made upon us, we should be exceedingly economical. Mr. Chairman, I do not ithinlc that we should do anything that would seem, so to 
speak, ''to grind the face of the poor"; and I think I am safe in saying that Canada to-day can be designated as a poor nation, in view of the heavy burden of taxation which we will have to face for the next generation.
The second ground on which I intend to vote against this estimate is this. I consider that what the Minister of Naval Affairs proposes to do either now or in the near future will be absolutely ineffective for defensive purposes. What did the minister tell us in his speech the other day in regard to the cruisers and other boats which he intends to get this year? He referred to the generous gift of the Mother Country to Canada. Well, so far as that is concerned, I am sure that we all appreciate the fact that the Old Country has offered us a gift. But, Sir, we should bear in mind that we are "daughter in our mother's house, but mistress in our own," and it is our duty primarily as citizens of Canada to say whether or not we shall accept that gift. Now, the gift in question comprises one cruiser, two torpedo boat destroyers and two submarines; and the cruiser, as I said in.my few remarks the other day, is practically no better than the Niobe, which is going to be sold or broken up for junk.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: On what does the
hon. gentleman base his opinion? The Niobe, of course, I admit at once is obsolete. But in view of the statement I made the other day, which will be seen in Hansard, that the cruiser we are to get is a modern ship-I gave the armament, etc.-on what assumption does my hon. friend base his argument that she is obsolete and is as useless as the Niobe?


William Duff: I thought I heard some other hon. gentleman opposite saying something. I would like him to get up and tell us what he said.	*
The minister why in my opinion the cruiser he intends to accept from the British Government is no better than the Niobe. I intended to give him my reasons for that and I would be glad to attempt to convince the minister that for the purpose fox which the cruiser will be used the Niobe will do just as good work as the cruiser the minister is going to get. The cruiser that he proposes to accept has a displacement of 4,800 tons, length 453 feet breadth 47 feet, draft 16.8 feet, speed 25) knots fuel capacity 1,345 tons of coal and oil consumption 260 tons. This is not a very large boat. The minister tells us that this cruiser was built in 1916.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I stated that the torpedo boat destroyers were constructed in 1916. I also said that the cruiser was a modern one, and I gave her speed and armament, but I said that the question of just what type of cruiser we were going to get had not been settled yet.


William Duff: I have to apologise to the minister if I do not remember his remarks correctly. But it does not make very much difference to my argument. It is a well known fact in the naval service that a cruiser becomes obsolete when she is five years of age and whether this cruiser is one year or five years old, it only means waiting two or three years until she becomes obsolete. For the purpose for which the Government will use this cruiser, the Niobe will be just as good, do just as effective service, and in fact better service, than this cruiser that he is going to laceapt from the British Government, The Niobe will do similar work at far less expense. You will notice that this new cruiser is going to burn 1,345 tons of coal and use 260 tons of oil. Let us see the class that the Niobe is in. The minister in his statement gave quite a glowing description of the work which the Niobe did during the war. The minister's statement is quite correct; the Niobe has a record of which we all ought to be proud, short though that service was. Her work off New York harbour when she watched f^ie steamers coming out of that port and put boarding officers on them to search them reflected great credit on the Niobe. There is only one ship in the British navy that put more boarding officers on vessels for the purpose of examining them than the old Niobe. Until her boilers went bad, this ship was used for patrol work. Instead of laying her up as a depot boat the Government should have fixed the tubes in her boilers and allowed her to remain in commission during the war. I contend that this new cruiser which the minister is going to accept from Great Britain will only be a plaything for some gentleman in his department and some officers and men in this country who will be taken from productive industries. Instead of allowing them to remain in the fields, the fishing boats, the mines or the lumber camps, these men will be taken from productive industries and put on board this cruiser. All this cruiser can do,, and all we can expect her to do, for the next few years is to sail up and down the Atlantic coast, or go through the Panama canal and sail up and down the Pacific coast. There is nothing else for her 273J
to do and yet we are asked to spend a large amount of money to provide a pleasure yacht for a number of people in this country.
I do not intend to talk about the torpedo boat destroyers, but I want to say in regard to the submarines that every man, woman and child, not only in this country but in every country in the civilized world heard enough about submarines during the war, and this Government will be ill-advised to accept from anybody those death-dealing instruments which the Germans used in the North Sea and other places during the war. Do we forget the Lusitania? Do we forget the hospital ships sunk by German submarines? Yet the minister and this Government intend to accept -from the British Government boats of this type. We should turn that offer down-spurn it with scorn- rather than accept such boats from any Government.
We had the pleasure of listening the other night to the very distinguished gentleman who represents Montreal, St. Antoine, in the person of the Financial Director of the Secretariat of the League of Nations, Sir Herbert Ames, and I am sure that every person who heard him listened with a great deal of interest to his remarks. He told us what the League of Nations had done and what he expected the League of Nations to do. If we are to believe what Sir Herbert Ames told us, or if we are to give heed to what he says we can expect in the future, ve certainly do not require even the nucleus of -a navy. Let me quote what the right hon. Mr. Balfour say-s about the League of Nations:
If. the League of Nations fails to promote a diminution in armament, remarks Mr. Balfour, much of its value will be gone and we will have to admit that it has failed to carry out the great expectations entertained with regard to its future activities."
And commenting on this utterance the Montreal Gazette says:
To which may be added that if the nations were honest in their war-time protestations, and if they are wise in their intentions now there will he a check in the mad race of armies and navies that inevitably leads to war.
These are the wise remarks of a statesman in the Old Country for whom every person in Canada has the greatest respect. It seems to me that what Sir Herbert Ames and what Mr. Balfour expects to be accomplished by the League of Nations must go to show us that it is not necessary for us to embark upon a naval policy of this kind.

I said a moment ago that these cruisers, destroyers and other boats that the Minister of Naval Affairs and the Government intend to accept from the Old Country would be absolutely ineffective for war purposes. I do not think that anybody will deny that statement. If anything should happen in the near future, if any complication should arise, we certainly could not expect to defend our coasts with these boats against any navy in the world no matter how small it might be.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: To whom would we turn for assistance to protect our coasts if we were put in the position which the hon. gentleman has just stated?


William Duff: I would ask my hon. friend to whom we would turn even if we had this little cruiser and these torpedo boat destroyers and two submarines. The hon. gentleman does not think, I suppose, that these would protect the Atlantic or Pacific coast in time of war?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: No.


William Duff: I am sure he does not intend to convey that idea. I do not care what happens, these five boats are absolutely useless for defensive purposes. If war should come and you kept them on the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast would be undefended, or if they were on the Pacific coast, the Atlantic coast would be undefended. You cannot very well cut in two -as Solomon proposed to do with the baby -this cruiser which the Minister of Naval Affairs is going to accept from England. You cannot have one part of that vessel on the Atlantic coast and the other part on'the Pacific coast. I am sure that the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) will agree with me that one torpedo boat destroyer on the Atlantic coast and another on the Pacific coast would not be very much good for the purposes of defence. And then, in case of an emergency, to whom would we turn? I tell the minister that we do not want these ships, and the reason for it is because on this side of the Atlantic we have the Monroe doctrine, and that doctrine will protect us as it will protect everybody else on this continent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: The Minister of Naval Affairs may very well laugh. Of course, it will be a great thing for him when these

cruisers come out. He can put on his peak cap and gold braid, go down toi the city of Halifax, board this cruiser and be received by a large number of man-of-war's-men. Next he can go up the St. Lawrence to Quebec and be received there by the mayor and the other civic dignitaries, and *can finally proceed to Montreal, his own city, and be received there. It will certainly be a great time for the Minister of Naval Affairs. But to the average citizen of this country, the ordinary man who has to pay taxes into the federal treasury, it is no laughing matter. I can assure hon. gentlemen opposite that I was never more serious in my life when I say that these boats which the minister is taking, or thinking of taking, from Great Britain will be absolutely useless for defence purposes and will be an absolute waste of good money.
Now, Sir, I said a moment ago that my third reason for being opposed to this policy was that public opinion in Canada is very strongly against this navy, and if the committee will bear with me for a minute or two, I will read what two or three papers have said since the Minister of Naval Affairs announced his policy in that regard on the 14th of June. The Manitoba Free Press, of Winnipeg, in an editorial of June 17 gave utterance to the following views:
There is, however, nothing emergent in the situation. Even though it may be that we face a future of wars and rumors of wars, we are going to htgre a breathing spell of release from these alarms. No hostile warships are likely to raid our coasts for a decade or so ; and we have time fully to consider the question and to reach some definite idea as to the extent of the burden we shall need to carry and the . manner in which we can best provide this defence. Beyond the fact, which trust has been settled for all time, that the navy when it comes will be Canadian throughout, Canadian ships, Canadian crews, Canadian officers, Canadian control, there is no very clear idea anywhere as to what is best to be done. Admiral Jellicoe's reports have by no means settled the problem for us.
The Free Press has more than one suggested that, seeing that the matter is not urgent, this is one problem that the Union Government might very well mark time upon. The matter should be very fully discussed in parliament and out of it before commitments, which are bound to have large financial consequences are made. The situation has all the appearance of having been forced by the importunities of the Admiralty. The Admiralty probably holds as firmly to-day as it ever did its belief that a common Imperial navy, subject to central control, is the only means effectively to provide naval defences for the British nations.
The Dominion Government. not having made up its mind about this naval policy, is nevertheless creating a small naval force made up of vessels presented to Canada by the

Admiralty. These ships, with the exception as to the superior officers-the exception is worth noting-are to be manned by Canadians. Gifts are favours with sharp edges. There is in them, however carefully hidden, some element of obligation. A one-sided gift between equals is a difficult transaction; and where the relationship is uncertain with some suggestion of inferiority on the part of the recipient, the acceptance of a gift may possibly have awkward consequences. The Dominion Government, it seems to us, would have been well advised if it had replied to the well-intentioned pressure from the Admiralty by saying that it could have no transactions with it until it had worked out its naval policy and secured the approval of the Canadian people; but that, once this was done, it would be prepared to consider taking over British ships if the Admiralty had them to spare on the basis of paying their full value for them.
If Mr. Ballantyne's statement is to be interpreted as meaning that the Canadian naval policy is to be determined at an Imperial naval conference to be held in London shortly, there is room for vigorous protest.
That is what the Manitoba Free Press, one of the newspapers supporting this Government, says in part about Canada's Naval Policy, and it will be noticed that it asserts that the very best thing the Government could do would be to defer this matter until we have had time to go more fully into it. I hope the Minister of Naval Affairs will carefully weigh the words of the Manitoba Free Press. Now, Sir, there is another newspaper which is strongly opposed to naval expenditure at this time. The paper in 'question is published in what may be called a naval and military city-a city which ever since its settlement has practically been a base for the British Army and the British Navy, and lately a base for Canadian troops and for the Canadian Navy. The paper to which I refer is the Halifax Chronicle which, in its issue of Wednesday, June 16th, made 'the following statements:
It is to be hoped that the practice of ministers saying one thing and meaning another, or meaning nothing at all, will not become epidemic in Parliament.
Well, Sir, I might say here that the Minister of Naval Affairs is not the only minister who has been guilty of this very same thing. The Chronicle goes on to say:
The Minister of Finance gave a striking exhibition of it in his Budget Speech. The Minister of Naval Service has followed suit.
Hon. Mr. Ballantyne gave it to be clearly understood, three months ago, that no decision would be reached with regard to a permanent naval policy for Canada until after the next Imperial Conference in 1921, more than a year hence. He subsequently presented Naval Estimates of only $300,000 for the current year. He issued orders for the virtual stripping of the Halifax and Esquimalt dockyards, and arranged for the disposition of all equipment and supplies. His apparent intention to economize
rigorously was regarded with almost universal satisfaction because it was generally felt that, after her enormous war expenditures, Canada could afford to do nothing effective in the naval direction, and had therefore better not attempt anything at present, or until the necessity and the way became clearer.
The matter was considered as good as settled temporarily, or for the session at least, until the minister sprung his new announcement of policy on the House of Commons, on Monday, coupled with Supplementary Estimates for $2,200,000, in addition to the $300,000 previously estimated, thus providing for a total expenditure of two and a half million dollars this year. More significant still, if not more ominous, was the repetition of his former statement that "no decision on a permanent naval policy would be reached until after the next Imperial Conference in 1921." The obvious suggestion is that the present vote of $2,500,000 is only a preliminary step, a mere foretaste of what is to follow.
An amazing revelation made in the minister's speech was that at a meeting of overseas Premiers, in London, in 1918, over which Sir Robert Borden presided, a memorandum was drawn up and sent to the Admiralty, in which the policy now to be adopted was recommended. That policy is identical, on a small scale, with that which iSir Wilfrid Laurier proposed for Canada, and which after first supporting, Sir Robert afterwards strenuously opposed. It was in direct opposition to it, that he brought forward his defeated measure to make a gift of Thirty-Five Million Dollars to the Admiralty from the Dominion Treasury. If Sir Robert is not a great sailor it cannot be for lack of knowledge of how to box the political compass on the Naval question.
The main points in connection with the minister's speech are that an additional $2,200,000 of public money its to be expended during this and each coming year, with the prospect of indefinite further increases in the near future, and that Canada is to maintain a number of vessels, presumably for training purposes. We are to assume this further burden while almost crushed beneath the liabilities incurred through the war, and before any effective steps have been taken towards the rehabilitation of the country's finances.
While Great Britain is cutting down her Navy as far and as fast as she can, Canada is to start building up a new Navy. While the German fleet was at its full menacing strength Oanad'a did without a Navy. Now that the German Fleet has been wiped out of existence, and there is no threatening fleet in sight in the world; now, after we have spent billions in the war and crippled the Dominion's finances for years to come, we are to be forced into further borrowings for additional expenditures to build and maintain a fleet which is wholly unnecessary just now, or as far ahead as one can see.
Surely Parliament will inspect and examine this singular proposition, so singularly brought forward, to the very bottom before sanctioning any such expenditures as that asked for by the minister, in Canada's present condition and circumstances.
I think that these wise wo.rdis written by ithe editor of the Morning Chronicle should certainly have same weigh! with the Minister of Naval Affairs 'and other hon. gentlemen opposite. In fact I think I am safe

in- saying that ia great many oif 'those horn, .gentlemen a.re nolfc in favour of a Maival poQicy. As I said in my remarks some few diaiys iago whispers came from ia certain caucus-.as whispeufe seem to come from a number of caucuses these days held 'by my friends opposite-itlbalt there was a division of opinion as to this naval policy and the Minister of Naval Affairs w.as told by his folioweits exactly what they tbongbt about it.
Now, Sir, we have in .the city of Halifax another paper, the Evening Mail, which treats the naval proposition of the minister as a joke-and it might well be considered a joke if it was not such a tragedy. The Evening Mail devotes one of its pages to what it calls a "Question Box." On that page it prints questions from readers and such answers as the editorial staff are able to furnish. Let me read one of these questions; it is as follows:
Question.-In the demobilization, so-called, of the Canadian Navy, again so-called, some two hundred, more or less, good, honest mechanics, natives of Halifax, mostly heads of families have been sent adrift. In each department a few men have been kept on, but the great majority have had to walk the plank. At the same time the clerical staff is left intact. Why get at the mechanics? If there is no use for the mechanics, there can he no use for the clericals. I thought the new navy was to he Canadian, hut the men retained have been selected by Imperials who are shortly to leave for England. We were told the new head would be a young Canadian, hut now we find it is to be an Englishman. While the war was on, some 7,100 young Canadians joined the service, serving in the North Sea, at home and elsewhere. Do you know how many of them are being retained for the new Canadian navy? Just one. And the new ships will soon be coming out to form the new Canadian navy with 1,500 Englishmen. Except, perhaps for a few clericals, the new Canadian navy will he more English than ever. We poor "natives" do not seem to be regarded as of any use fexcept when there is any fighting to be done. I hope The Mail will take this matter up, for it is certainly getting up to the straining point.
The answer given to that question reads:
Answer.-Regarding the mechanics, we understand the labor unions are taking the matter up and as far as the other statements are concerned we have no direct knowledge. Of course, we have always considered this Canadian navy business as more or less of a joke and as time goes by we see no reason to change our opinion.
That, Sir, is the opinion of the editor of the Evening Mail, published is the city of Halifax-a city, which as I said a moment ago, was for many years a naval and military centre.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who is the editor?


William Duff: I do not recollect at the moment; but the distinguished proprietor of that paper is no less a gentleman than Hon. Mr. Dennis, a member of our Senate.
Now, Sir, in view of the fact that public opinion is so strongly against this expenditure; in view of the fact that the finances of Canada are in such a serious condition; and in view of the fact that these ships we are getting cannot by any means be termed a navy or even the nucleus of a navy, it seems to me that the Government should reconsider this matter and not ask the House to vote these Estimates. My own idea is that under present circumstances the minister should take a decided stand and advise the Mother Country that we are not in a position to accept the proffered ships. I can understand that it is a very delicate subject for the Minister of Naval Affairs or the Government to refuse this gift from the Mother Country, but I think we might well be honest in the matter. At the present time practically one-quarter of the water front in the city of Halifax is owned by the Naval Department either for the Imperial or Dominion Government, and there can be no doubt that it would he better for the Government to sell that portion of the water front for business purposes, particularly as the water front facilities are insufficient to meet the local business needs; and by taking the course I have suggested the minister would be doing something that would help to stimulate and increase the business of this country. There is plenty -of vacant land either on the Bedford Basin or on the Dartmouth shore where a dockyard could be located as a coaling station, etc., for the British Navy. Therefore in my opinion we should say to the Mother Country: If we enjoyed the prosperity of some years ago when we did not have to bear the enormous burden which we incurred during the war, we would he very glad to accept your gift; but at the present time our financial position will not warrant us undertaking the expenditure which the acceptance of your gift would involve.
But let us offer to help out the Mother Country in this way. Let the Imperial authorities make a new dockyard at the Bedford Basin or on the Dartmouth Shore and take over the naval defence of Halifax and Esquimalt. We will do what we can to provide naval recruits. If our young men now join this Canadian navy, they will have very small chances of promotion; but if the British Government take charge of naval affairs at Halifax and Esquimalt

they can train these same young men in the Imperial navy where there will be ample scope for their abilities to earn promotion.
Under all the circumstances, I think the Government would 'be well advised to inform the Mother Country that, for the reasons I have already stated, Canada cannot afford to take over the ships which have been offered, and that this Parliament will for the present defer dealing further with the question of naval defence.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all hon. members will at once agree with me that this is the most remarkable speech that has ever been delivered in this House or that ever will be delivered for generations to come. It was rather difficult for me, as I am sure it was for hon. members, to follow the logic of my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), for he set up an argument only to knock it down again. He first argued that we should have nothing in the shape of naval training or naval defence. But he overlooked the statement I made in the House a few days ago that under the Naval Service Act of 1910- which was placed on the Statute Books by my hon. friends opposite-we are in honour bound to maintain the docks at Halifax and at Esquimalt. Under that Act Canada entered into solemn obligations with the Mother Country not only to defend these shores, but to maintain and keep up a navy at all times, under certain conditions and regulations which it is unnecessary for me to specify at the present time. Suffice it to say that we were then obligated and will continue to be obligated, until such time as the Naval Service Act is repealed, to maintain the dockyards at Halifax and at Esquimalt. My hon. friend argued that we should wipe the slate of everything. I presume he intended that we should close up the Naval College at Esquimalt, that college that has such a splendid record. The Canadian cadets turned out by that college have gained a fine reputation for themselves in Canada and in the Imperial Navy that they have served so well during the time they 'have been in that fine service. But my hon. friend wants the Naval College closed up.


William Duff: I did not say that I wanted if closed up. I did not mention the Naval College. But since (the minister has asked me what I would do with the Naval College, I would ask the British Admiralty to take it [DOT]over.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It goes without saying that if you close up the dockyards at Esquimalt and Halifax, and if you do away with the depot ships we have now, the Niobe and the Rainbow, and if you refuse to accept tlhe 'generous gift of the British Government, it would certainly be a foolish policy to maintain the Naval College as it exists at the present time. Therefore, I assumed from the remarks of the hon. member that he wanted to abolish the Naval College as well as the dockyards and the depot ships.
He no sooner got through with that part of his argument than he undertook, very feebly and ineffectively, I will say, to prove that this modern cruiser with four-inch and six-inch guns, most modern in every way, these torpedo boat destroyers and the submarines were not modern; that they were of no value. Then, coming back to the Niobe, he went on to say that there was no use of accepting this modern cruiser from Great Britain because the country had the Niobe, and he said: Why not put the Niobe into commission again? I thought the hon. member was quite familiar with the state the Niobe was in at the present time, but apparently he is not; and therefore I will tell him that the Niobe is twenty-five years old and that she has no guns on board whatever.


William Duff: Whose fault is that?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If my hon. friend will allow me, we shall reach all those things later on. It would cost to put the Niobe into commission not less than $500,000, after she was put into commission, she would cost this country to keep her in commission the very large sum of $1,445,329. If we agree with my hon. friend and put the Rainbow into commission, at a vast cost to the country also because she is obsolete and without guns and is a ship about thirty years, old, it would cost this country $625,869 to maintain the Rainbow in commission.
My hon. friend having got through with that phase of his argument got more remarkable as he proceeded on his way. He wiped Itlhalt all out and said thlait he did not believe in having naval defence of any kind. He returned to the first part of his argument; he said: There is no need of having in this! country a cruiser and torpedo boat destroyers. And he got almost panicky over the two modern submarines that the British Government have presented to Canada. One listening to him would think that at once we were going to send these submarines out to sea to shell the various
<298

coast cities and fishing smacks, just as the U boats did. If my hon. friend has any anxiety on that score, let me assure him at once that I am a peaceful man and this is a peaceful Government. We have no idea whatever of sending these submarines out on such murderous cruises as the hon. member would lead the country to believe.


Ernest Lapointe: They will be peaceful submarines.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Let me tell my hon. friend again, before we leave the question of the cruiser, torpedo boat destroyers and submarines, that they are all modern. I hope the Parliament and Government of Canada will decide always to look after their own naval defence, and I trust that in the future, when a permanent policy is decided upon-as we fervently hope it will be at the conference of 1921-Canada may see her way clear, as her financial position will allow, to do something more in keeping with her dignity as a self-governing nation than what we are able to do at the present time owing to thd strained financial condition of the country.
My hon. friend then came to the most startling part of his proposals. The hon. member for Lambton East (Mr. Armstrong) asked him to whom we would turn, and the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) said: We would turn to our neighbours, the Americans. And the hon. member would be satisfied that this country, that has shown its fervour and ability to take the part that she has nobly taken in the war, should take refuge under the Munroe dbotrine if ever her shores were threatened in any way.


William Duff: Is it not true that the Government have to go every day with their hats in their hands to the United States for money, and that they will have to do that to. get money for their new shipbuilding programme?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
will agree that that has nothing to do with the argument he has made or with the reply that I am now making to his remarkable epeech. But let me tell him that I do not think he would have one member on his side of the House-and he certainly would not have one man on this side-who would for one moment agree with his suggestion that this country above all other countries in the British Empire would be satisfied to rest under the folds of the American flag and to depend upon the Monroe Doctrine if ever our shores were threatened. We all trust that our shores may never be
[Mr. Ballantyne.l
threatened; but if ever they be threatened, Canadians will defend the shores and ports of Ganada in the future ae they have always done in the past. If we have not sufficient naval forces to do that, we shall turn, not to our good friends the Americans or to the Monroe Doctrine, but to the Mother Country which has protected Canada from a naval standpoint ever since Canada has been a part of the British Empire. There has never been in the past, and there never will be in the future a time when Canada will find herself in such a humiliating position that she will have to take refuge under the Monroie Doctrine.


William Duff: The minister says that we have never turned and we shall never turn to the United States for protection. He must have a bad memory. Does he not remember that in the summer of 1918, the coast of Nova Scotia, the Atlantic seaboard was protected not only by United States destroyers but by United States airships?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am glad my hon. friend has asked me that question. Now that the war is over, il am at liberty to eay that thousands and thousands of American troops went out by the St. Lawrence route and the ports of Halifax and Sydney, and American cruisers and American air forces were there for the protection of American ships and American soldiers.


William Duff: The minister did not answer my question.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend goes on to state that those torpedo boat destroyers, cruiser and submarines, although they are modern now, will, in his opinion, be obsolete five years from now. I prefer to take the opinion of Lord Jellicoe rattier than that, of the hon. member for Lunenburg. That distinguished naval officer states that neither a cruiser, a torpedo boat destroyer, nor a submarine, becomes obsolete under twelve or fifteen years. So we have at least twelve or fifteen years before any of the warships that England has been good enough to present to us, and which have been gratefully accepted by Canada, become obsolete.
I do not know where my hon. friend has been living when he has not been in Ottawa that he can say that public opinion in this country is against Canada expending the very meagre sum of $2,000,000 on naval matters until such time as a permanent policy has been decided upon. He quoted from newspapers, but he took very good care not to quote that well-known Liberal paper the

Toronto' Globe, because he would not have found in that journal an editorial on the navy to his liking. The Toronto Globe, approved of this expenditure and approved of the Government policy in every Tespect. As I judge public opinion, I am quite satisfied that the great majority of Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific, irrespective of race or creed, not only are heartily in favour of what the Government proposes to do at the present time, 'but I am sure they will approve of Canada doing more than she is doing now when a permanent naval policy is decided upon, irrespective of. what Government happens to be in power in 1921. My hon. friend will have an opportunity two years from now, or probably a little later, to test out public opinion upon a permanent naval policy for this country.


William Duff: The sooner the better.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: And he will not get very many votes if he advocates on the public platform at that time the extraordinary views he has given this House to-night. The hon. member also made one or two other statements that were absolutely incorrect. He said that at Halifax we had let out mechanics but nobody else, that all the clerks were retained. Let me tell my hon. friend that since the demobilization orders were issued, we have let out at Halifax 34 civilian clerks, 93 mechanics, 42 naval officers, and 227 men of other naval ratings. The hon. member gives .the Government no credit whatever for reorganizing the navy, inefficient as it was. We have had a thorough reorganization, and have let out 782 officers and men of other ratings and civilians whom we did not require, and who did not possess the necessary knowledge and efficiency. Our navy is small, I admit, but it is going'to be efficient, and there will be nothing political about it. With these modem torpedo boat destroyers, submarines, and the cruiser, we shall be in the best possible condition to train the graduates of our naval colleges and the young Canadians who, we hope, will join our Naval Service. Not only have we a long coast line in this country, but we have also a mercantile marine, which will consist of. 63 ships, which we must endeavour to protect.
My hon. friend from Lunenburg says in a scornful way that the cruiser, the torpedo boat destroyers, and the submarines will be of no value in time of war. It is quite evident to me that my hon. friend did not cross the ocean during the war. If he had done so, I am sure he wrnuld have felt greatly relieved, as did all the passengers
and soldiers who crossed the ocean in those times of peril, to see in the far distance the smoke of approaching torpedo boat destroyers, those effective ships with a speed of thirty-five knots, zig-zagging along, up and down each side of the ship, and in front and behind, forming an almost perfect guard against submarines. If he had had that experience he would have a much higher opinion of torpedo boat destroyers than he entertains at the present time. I have only one more remark to make.


Mr. COPP:: Hear, hear.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member says "hear, hear." Surely it is no harm to place the actual facts before the people on such a question as this.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It was a note of encouragement.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member for Lunenburg said that there would be no promotion for Canadians on these ships. There again he is in error. I am happy to say that when the ships arrive from England every officer on board the cruiser, the torpedo boat destroyers and the submarines will be a Canadian, except the four senior officers.


William Duff: What rank will these officers hold?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Canadian officers will be lieutenants and commanders. The captain of the cruiser will be an admiralty officer. With the exception, of Captain Hose we have not in Canada an officer with sufficient knowledge to take' command of a cruiser, but just as soon as Canadian officers are trained, the policy of the Government is to put Canadian officers on all these ships, and let the British officers go back home. Furthermore our Canadian officers will rank equally with the British naval officers on the other side, and will have the same opportunity for promotion in the home fleet as if they were on a cruiser in home waters. I am quite satisfied that the committee will piss this item, after we have heard possibly from one or two other members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend (Mr. Ballantyne) said that the Toronto Globe had spoken with approval of the Government's naval policy. Would the minister inform us what the Government's naval policy is?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend need not try to draw a red herring across the trail. He knows perfectly well that I was

referring 'to what we are doing at the present time until a permanent policy will be decided upon in 1921. I know my hon. friend reads the Toronto 'Globe and he must have seen the article.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not trying to draw a red herring across the trail. We are on the Naval Estimates and I 1am asking a concrete question:	What is the
Government naval policy? Has it a naval policy or has it not a naval policy? We on this side of the House understand that the Government has no naval policy. If it has, will the minister state it?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: L stated on the floor of this House on March 25 .and, repeated a few days ago, and I reiterate now that no definite naval policy will be decided upon until after the Naval Conference that will be called in 1921. I also stated clearly on March 25, that we had accepted this cruiser and the torpedo boat destroyers, and that for the present we were going to carry on on pre-war lines. I have been consistent all the way through in my remarks on naval laffairis. .


Mr. DENTS:: This is a rather technical
question, and if I make any errors in the few remarks I intend to make, I trust the minister and the committee will be indulgent. As I see it, this new expenditure that we are asked to make is the outcome of the mission of Lord Jellicoe to this country. It is true that the report made by Lord Jellicoe is not being followed; in other words, no permanent policy is being at present adopted. But the underlying idea of that report is, in a nut-shell, that all of the Dominions should unite with the Mother Country in an effort to build the most powerful fleet in the world. And what we are doing now is only a step toward the fulfilment of that policy. Now, it has been said to-night toy the minister that we have no permanent policy at present; and, if I mistake not, neither has Great Britain any permanent naval policy just now. The permanent policies of Great Britain and her colonies will he formulated in the course of the next Imperial Conference which is to be held in 1921. The view that we have no permanent policy is very clearly expressed in the memorandum which was read to the House some time ago and which .will he found ait page 3605 of Unrevised Hansard. I may quote the minister's statement:
In view of Canada's heavy financial commitments and of the fact that Great Britain has not as yet decided on her permanent naval

policy, and of the approaching Imperial Conference at which the question of naval defence of the Empire will come up for discussion between the Home Government and the Overseas Dominions, it has been decided to defer in the meantime action in regard to the adoption of a permanent naval policy for Canada.
The first point I want to bring to the attention of the minister is this. Since we have no permanent policy why should we take such a preliminary step as this, and why should we embark on any temporary policy? It seems to be generally admitted that we have no permanent policy, and we know also that the navy the Estimates for which we are asked to vote to-night would not he effective in case of war between now and 1921. Therefore what is the use of inaugurating a new policy which is not to be permanent and which, as a matter of fact, can he no policy at all until we are informed of the decisions on the naval question at the conference of 1921? From my point of view the money which we are going to spend now will be spent to no purpose. I said a moment ago that Great Britain contemplates having the largest and most powerful fleet in the world in conjunction with her Dominions. Now, there are two siies to that question. When war was declared by Germany practically the whole of the world united against her in order to destroy what was described as militarism. Germany had taken the necessary means to bring under her control what she considered to be the most powerful army in the world, and because Germany had creaAed such a vast army the rest of mankind joined forces against her and decided on the destruction of militarism. Are we not to a certain extent in a similar position when we undertake to build the largest navy in the world? What was called militarism in Germany may, if we persist in this determination to create a huge and predominant fleet, give place to a state of things for which I can find no word in the dictionary but which I venture to term "navalism". We are undertaking a naval programme which will eventually *bring the rest of the world into conflict with us. When I say "we", I mean Great Britain and her colonies. Let me state what the United States intend to do in this matter. They declared recently that they are going to build a navy even more powerful than any navy which Great Britain and her colonies united could ever build. To me, this naval rivalry is vying with German militarism in creating a feeling of international distrust. England has enjoyed the supremacy of the seas ever since the

destruction of the Spanish and the French fleets, and certainly no one regrets (this fact. Up to the present time every country of the world has greatly benefited by the naval power which Great Britain has exercised. But will this be the fact for all time? Speaking in Ottawa in November or December last, Lord Jellicoe said:
The Empire must maintain a balance of sea-power which will enable her to meet and conquer any enemy.
About the same time he said in Toronto:
We ought to maintain forces that are sufficient to deal with any possible enemy.
This means, obviously, that we ought to maintain a fleet that can meet the rest of the world. For the last centuTy England's supremacy has been unchallenged, but I do not know that her path, so far as control of the seas is concerned, will be in the future as smooth as it has been in the past. Let us see 'what the United *States are saying. About ten days after Lord Jellicoe made the declarations I have just quoted, a despatch from Washington on December 9 last announced to the world that the Official Bureau of Naval Construction of the United States was recommending a programme the execution of which in .five years would make the American fleet the equal of the most powerful fleet .maintained by any nation of the world.
This statement was issued on December 9. Let us see what has been done by the United States since that time. I hold in my hand a very valuable, and I may say an accurate, review which is published in the United 'States, the Literary Digest. In its issue of June 19, 1920, there appears the following:
Our Navy to Lead the World: Just why America should be feverishly building huge battleships and battle cruisers at a rate that will soon make us the strongest naval power on earth is a question that is interesting Great Britain, Japan, and some people in our own land. The launching of the "Tennessee" the world's largest battleship, has renewed the talk about this matter. Twelve dreadnoughts and six great battle cruisers, with electrically driven engines, and mounting in all 152 sixteen inch rifles and 24 fourteen inch rifles soon are to be constructed. The cruisers will be 874 feet long and will have a speed of 37 miles per hour. The displacement of the "Iowa" and the "Massachusetts", two of the new battleships, will be 43,000' tons as against the "Tennessee's" 32,000 tons, and they will be two knots faster than this ship.
In other words, the new Massachusetts will be about four times as large as the Massachusetts of Spanish-War fame. To round out the Navy's stupendous programme, a proportionate number of scout-cruisers, destroyers, and submarines are being built.
From this one can very well understand- it is no secret by any means-that the
United States are contemplating now the creation of the largest and most powerful navy in the world. And if England has the absolute right to make claim to the largest and .most powerful navy in the world it is a right which equally belongs to the United. States. Let us see what is going to happen as a result of this situation. On the one hand we have England iMistress of the Seas for over a century, and she wants to keep this supremacy, amd rightly too. I would be very glad to see England keep it. On the other hand we have the United States, which has a population two and .a half times that of England, and which is richer than England, saying:	We are going to build
the largest and most powerful navy in the world. We have that sort of a conflict in actual existence between the two most powerful nations in the world. What will be the outcome of it? In order that England may have the largest and most powerful fleet we are asked-'not through this vote because this is only the beginning-to contribute to England's navy. The minister said a minute ago that he was relying on the law which w.as passed in 1910 as a reason why this vote should be accepted. Of course the law which w.as passed in 1910 provided for a much larger expenditure on the naval programme than that which is now under discussion. But in 1910 conditions were different,-I will come to that point later on. For the time being we have two of the most powerful nations in the world facing one another and each saying: I am going to build the largest navy in the world. In other words: I am challenging you. There is a challenge in that. Why are these navies being built? They are not being built for commerce or trade; they are being built in order that one of these nations shall acquire supremacy of the seas. The United States are building the largest navy because they want to contest the hegemony which England has had for a hundred years on the seas. On the other hand England wants to keep her supremacy. Are we in a (position to intervene between the two? Notwithstanding the fact that we are part of the British Empire, and notwithstanding that we are in sympathy with England's cause, .are we in a position to intervene? I say we are not, on (account off out geographical situation. If Canada was far distant from the United States we might very well have a naval programme and @0i into the building of war (ships. But now we cannot go into that programme because we cannot at any time unite our navy with the English navy, in order to counteract the American navy.

It must not be lost sight of that navies are only built for war and not for peace purposes. They are only useful in time of war and if we want to ascertain the value or the necessity of a navy, we must suppose for the moment that war is declared. Supposing that war should be declared between England and the United States in five years from now, could Canada go ahead and assure England's plan of naval supremacy or send her navy to England? If England were to go to war with the United States our position would be absolutely helpless both on land and on sea.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. DEMI'S: My hon. friends may laugh but it is true. I will go farther and appeal to any man who wants to look at this question sincerely and honestly. Our population is about one-twelfth that of the United States. The United States has about twenty times our wealth. Hbw could we stand the pressure if war should ever be declared between the United States and Canada? Our navy would be absolutely ineffective.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: What does the hon.
gentleman think we should do under such conditions as that?


Mr. DENIS:: If such an emergency should ever arise our position would be about the same as the position of Servia when war was declared by Austria-Hungary against her. Our position would not be much beter.


Arthur Meighen: What should we do?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I suppose we would do our best to defend ourselves, but I say what ex-President Roosevelt once said; I do not think our chances will be much better than the 'Chances of a fat calf tied up in a tiger-infested jungle. That is what he said when comparing the strength of the United States with that of a small nation and that would be about the position of our navy. We would have no chance at all. There is no use of saying that we are patriots and that we are going to rise up and defend our country. Let us assume that we will try to defend our country, how could we defend it? Under no circumstances could we defend the soil of Canada against the United States.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Then I understand what the hon. gentleman means is that if such an unfortunate catastrophe should occur as that war Should break out between Canada and the United States the British Empire would have no more

chance than the fatted calf in the tiger jungle?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I will explain myself again and I hope I may be able to make myself understood. I am simply speaking of Canada. Canada is close to the United States, she has a border line of 3,000 miles long and the United States aims in five years to have a navy equal to that of England,-they Claim that it will be better but let us admit that it will be equal. It will be equal-there is no use of denying it.


Arthur Meighen: If we are in the position of the fatted calf, does the hon gentleman think we ought to try and defend ourselves? Or should we not- try at all?


Jean-Joseph Denis: We should fake the same course as heroic Serbia took. She defended herself and we could try to defend ourselves, hut in the meantime we are well aware that we would not have any more chance than the fatted calf I spoke of.


Mr. KEEFER:: What happened in the
war of 1812 when the United States came over to take Canada?


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon friend is too much a reader of history to confront present conditions with the conditions of 1812.


Francis Henry Keefer: There -was the same
ratio, of people.


Jean-Joseph Denis: There is no comparison at all.


Francis Henry Keefer: The same ratio of people -ten to one.
Mr. DENIS': The conditions are not the same at all.


Frank S. Cahill: They were nearly all
French-Canadians at that time; it is different now.


Francis Henry Keefer: What about Queenston
Heights, Lundy's Lane and the rest?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Conditions are altogether
different. Any student of conditions today must admit that Canada would not be in a position to defend herself against the United States.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the hon. member allow me a question? Has he forgotten that there is such a thing as a French navy?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I did not catch the question.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I asked the hon. gentleman, if he has forgotten that there is such a thing in the world as a French navy?


John Allister Currie: And an Italian navy and a Japanese navy?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Yes, there is a French navy, and there is an Italian navy and a Japanese navy.


Francis Henry Keefer: And there is the League of Nations, too.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Yes, there is the League of Nations, too. But all that would not save Canada from the United1 States if war was declared. By the time those navies would he here, and by the time transports could convey troops overseas to this country, Canada would be overpowered. Canada could be conquered ten times over and all the warriors in those countries could not defend it against the United States.


Francis Henry Keefer: Why did not Germany try to break through Switzerland?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I will answer that question as I did a minute ago. My hon. friend is too well informed to ask me a question like that. He is too well informed to make a comparison between a mountainous country like Switzerland and' a country like Canada.


Francis Henry Keefer: What about Switzerland?


Jean-Joseph Denis: The conditions are altogether different. It is harder to go three miles through a mountainous country like Switzerland than it is to go 500 miles through a country like Canada. There is no comparison between the two countries at all.


Francis Henry Keefer: What about the mountains of Italy? Austria got through those mountains into -Italy.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do not quite see where the argument comes in. How long did it take Austria to do that? It took Austria three years to push its way through those mountains. It would not take the United States three years, or even three months, to get into Canad'a; their armies would be in this country within a few days. Now, I want to be well understood in the argument that I have made. I do not say that we should not do our duty in this matter, not for a moment; but I want the House to understand clearly that because we are neighbours of the United States our position is an exceptional one. If we were living in Australia, in New Zealand, or in any other British colony, the question would appear to us in a different light altogether.
Then it would be a matter o-f policy. We might say that it was convenient, or it was not convenient, it was proper or it was not proper, that we should construct a navy, organize an army, and pool our resources, naval and military, with England in case of war with the United States. But when we are neighbours of the United States we cannot pool our resources in that way. Even supposing we should construct a navy-and a strong navy-that navy instead of ensuring peace to Canada would only be a cause of inconvenience and a source of danger because it would have to be immediately placed in an antagonistic position against the United States navy in case of a difficulty between the United States and England.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. member incline to the idea that the navies of the United States, of Great Britain and of Canada would be working in the one way to preserve the peace of the world? I would like his opinion upon that idea.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If my hon. friend had followed the point I am developing he would have understood that I am now contemplating the possibility of a conflict between England and the United States, not otherwise. What I am now saying would not apply in case of a conflict between other nations, but it would apply in the event of a war between Great Britain and the United States. Therefore, I say that the only thing that we have to fear at the present time is the conditions between these, two countries who are entering into an excessive and intensive development of their naval policies. In five years from now th# navies of France, Italy, and Japan will be nothing as compared with either the British navy or the United States navy. There will be two great sea powers in the world -Great Britain and the United States. If no conflict ever arises between these two countries my argument does not apply. But I assert this: England will never need a Canadian navy to help her in case she should be in difficulties with the United States and even if that situation does arise we cannot help her on account of our geographical position. Consequently whether we look at the question from one side or the other I would say that our navy would be useless to help England.


Arthur Meighen: Is it the hon. gentleman's contention that we should just exist on the sufferance of the United States?


Jean-Joseph Denis: No.


Arthur Meighen: Not quite?


Jean-Joseph Denis: No, it is not. I think out country can very well be compared with the nations of South America, or to other countries in the world that have no navy.


Arthur Meighen: If we are sure to be
swallowed up in the event of a conflict do we not just exist on the sufferance of the United States?


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend knows better than that.


Arthur Meighen: Just explain that.


Jean-Joseph Denis: There is no relation at all between our inability to resist pressure coming from the United States in case of war, and our being a dependency of the United States or under its control. Let us take Mexico for example. Could Mexico defend itself against United States? Has Mexico got a navy? The answer will be that Mexico is in the throes of civil war just now. But supposing the civil war had ceased, could Mexico defend itself against the United States? Has Mexico a navy, or has it an army? It has neither, and yet it is not a dependency of the United States or in a dependent state with respect to that country-not for a minute. Notwithstanding, if the United States should go to war with Mexico the latter could not resist its powerful neighbour any more than Canada could.


Arthur Meighen: I do not say that the
hon. gentleman intends to argue that we are technically a dependency, but if he is correct both Mexico and ourselves exist purely on the sufferance of the United States.


Frank S. Cahill: Where do you get that idea?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do not quite understand
the moaning of the phrase "sufferance of the United States." It is a new expression to me and I fail to grasp its meaning.


Arthur Meighen: I mean that because of her grace and kindness they desist from declaring war upon us. That is the only reason we exist according to the argument of my hon. friend.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Not for a moment. My hon. friend knows better than that; he is too logical to hold that view.


Arthur Meighen: Just explain the difference.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend has a logical mind and knows much better than that.


Arthur Meighen: Well, what is the difference?


Jean-Joseph Denis: There are like examples to be found all over the world. For example, Belgium, before the war, would have been in the same position towards France and Germany if it had not been for the treaty which was then in existence. Belgium may perhaps be a poor comparison, I will take a better one.


Arthur Meighen: It is very bad.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Let us take Mexico which is a neighbour of the United States. Mexico is in exactly the same position as we are. Is Mexico not a free and independent state? Is it not absolutely free of any dependency upon the United States? Mexico does not depend upon United States for its liberty; Mexico has all the attributes of a sovereign state; but the undoubted fact remains that in case of war, we all know, it could not defend itself against the United States.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: Who knows that?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I take it for granted, without any fear of contradiction. But even if that example is not a good one others can be cited. Throughout the world there are small, weak nations that are neighbours of strong and powerful nations. The weak and the powerful nation live side by side, and yet no one pretends that the small and weak nation is a dependency of the strong nation or is dependent upon it. The weak nation conserves its dignity and its state of complete independence, but should a conflict arise it might happen that the weak nation could not defend itself. Now I was just saying this:	The only nation that
England can ever fear in the future- if there is any cause for fear at all, which I do not know; but we believe from all we hear that there is possibly some	fear-is	the United States.
To-day the English navy is the strongest in the world, and if the policy of the Imperial authorities is carried out Great Britain will continue to be by far the strongest naval power in the world, with the exception of the United States. My information is that since 1914 the strength of the British navy has been more than doubled, and the British Government is about to undertake a very extensive naval programme. But the United States are doing the same, and in five years from now we will be confronted by a condition of affairs which has not obtained for over a century, namely, the spectacle of a great nation ready to contest the supremacy of

England on the seas. And, whether we like it or not, we have got, to admit this fact. It is not a question of loyalty, it is not a question of saying that we like it or that we do not like it-we have got to acknowledge the fact. Therefore when we see the United States launching her stupendous naval programme, we have to admit that so far as ships and men are concerned the United States will have just as strong, and, perhaps even a stronger navy than England within five years' time. Of course, it is not always the big man who is the best fighter, and we do not know what would be the result of a trial of strength between the two navies. But, nevertheless', we have to admit the fact that to-day the United States are assuming an antagonistic attitude towards England so far as naval strength is concerned.
Mr. CURRIEWhat do we care if they are?


Jean-Joseph Denis: When I was interrupted
I was developing my point that England will never need our navy, because, unless she is at war with United States, there is no other naval power or combination of naval powers which could for a moment hope to overcome the British navy. For it is inconceivable to suppose that France and Italy, for instance, would unite with Japan against England. Leaving aside the United States, in five years from now the British navy will still be superior to every possible naval combination. Consequently we have these two factors to consider : that if England is ever at war with the weak sea powers she will not need our navy, which, we must admit, would be an infinitesimal quantity; and, if she should be forced into a war with United States, our navy would be at once destroyed and our country would be overrun.


John Allister Currie: It is not so.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend may say
"it is not so", but that does not change the facts.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Might I ask my hon. friend a question? Does he argue that we should break away from the British Empire? Or even if he does not go so far as that, does he realize that every man, woman and child in the British Isles is being taxed $10.75 per head for the navy, while this proposal is equivalent to a tax of only 25 cents per head of our
population? What would he do under those circumstances?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am glad my hon. friend asks me that question, because it only serves to make clear what I have just said. I say that, leaving aside the United States, we are good and ready to do all we can to help England; against the United States we are good and ready to do all we can for England, but we are helpless. The facts are clear and simple, and I submit that I am not laying myself open to any charge of lack of patriotism when I state the facts.
Now, if this be true, I ask:	seeing that
no permanent naval policy has been adopted by Canada, and seeing that there is to be an Imperial Conference at which the questions I have just submitted will necessarily be discussed and a permanent naval policy decided on, what is the use of embarking on a naval programme at the present time? It is true that this programme is very small, but the proposed expenditure of $2,000,000 this year, will be so much more next year, and probably will be still further increased the year following, and so on. When we are not in immediate need of a navy, when it might be altogether useless two or three yearn from now after the Imperial Conference, why spend money now? Why not wait until after the Conference when we shall have a definite policy placed before us?
My hon. friend the minister said a few minutes ago that in 1910 the Laurier Government passed a law to build a navy; and, of course, one might say that the argument I have been advancing would apply with equal force to the navy of 1910. But I submit that that is not so, because in 1910 the conditions were altogether different. The United States were not a first class sea power then as they are now, not by any means.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Oh, yes, the United States navy ranked fifth.


Jean-Joseph Denis: That is far from being a first-class sea power.


William Antrobus Griesbach: The second,, third,
fourth and fifth naval powers were almost on terms of equality.


Jean-Joseph Denis: At all events, if it were
only for the reasons I have just given, I submit that the conditions in 1910 were altogether different from what obtain today. In 1910 the menace was the rising sea power of Germany, and Great Britain

urgently needed our help for in case of war our navy could have been used to some purpose against the Germain navy; and the same considerations would apply should the rising sea power to-day be Japan, China or any other nation but the United States.
On the whale I submit that there is no reason why we should for the present commit ourselves to any naval expenditure. We are not wiser than the British naval authorities, and they are waiting for this Imperial Conference before adopting a permanent policy; therefore this naval programme is, to say the least, premature. When the Conference next year shall have pronounced itself-'and Canada will be represented there- we shall be in a position to adopt a naval policy suited to the needs of this country in relation to the needs of the Empire.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am not posing as an expert, 11am speaking simply as a layman, and I wish my words to be accepted as such. If the Imperial Conference should come to the 'conclusion that the point of view I have presented is wrong, well I will be ready probably to change my opinion, because I would not presume to think that I new better than the technical men whose opinion no doubt will guide the Conference in reaching a conclusion as to a permanent naval policy for the Empire. At the present time we are going by ourselves alone without any direction. Because we think it is a good thing to do so, we are going into a naval policy which cannot and will not be any policy until a permanent policy has been adopted. Therefore, this should be suspended; these expenditures are premature.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: We have just had the privilege of listening to one of the most remarkable speeches, I believe, that has ever been delivered in the Parliament of Canada, a speech placing the people of Canada in the most humiliating position that they could possibly be placed in, distinctly and definitely stating that we are in the position that Serbia was in previous to the war; that we are in the position Mexico is in to-day; that while we are looked upon as the right arm of the British Empire, we are to-day in the most humiliating position of any nation on the face of the globe. That is, according to the argument brought forward by my hon. friend. He says that as Great Britain has an enormous navy, and as the United States have built up a great navy we should not take any part in any war in the future, we

should not support Great Britain in any way that would interfere with any action taken by the United States. I am sure that when the people of Canada read the words the hon. gentleman has just made use of they will recognize the fact that he certainly does not voice their sentiments. The Canadian people have given, in connection with this great war, a definite demonstration of what they are capable of doing, not only on land, but on the sea. Take into consideration the fact that previously to the war, every man, woman and child in the Motherland was compelled to take six dollars out of his and her pocket and give it towards the development of the British navy in order that we, as part of the British Empire, might be protected, in order that our commerce on the high seas might be protected, and that to-day Great Britain is taking from the people of the British Isles $10.75 per head for the same purpose, while the request that has been made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) is simply for a paltry 25 cents per head from the people of Canada to help to carry on this proposal. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) says that this is not the semblance of a navy. That is very true. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has definitely explained that part of the matter. We listened to another very interesting speech from the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) who said: Sell out the Niobe land the Rainbow; clean up the dirty mess.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The hon. member stands by his statement.
Mr. MEilGHEN: Who made the mess?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is just what I was going to ask. Who was responsible for it?


William Duff: What has that got ta do with the matter?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Who was responsible for enacting in 1910 a Naval Service Act?


William Duff: What has that got to do with the matter?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman says: "What has that got to do with the matter?" The hon. gentlemian says that we should clean up the dirty mess, but who were the men who organized the dirty mess?

An horn. MEMBER: The Act was passed before the war.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes, it
was organized before the war, and while the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) was speaking, he was able to say that the Rainbow and the Niobe did excellent work during the war. Yet, he is perfectly satisfied to say that these new vessels that have been completed since 1916 are not to be compared with the Niobe and Rainbow that have been in existence for the last twenty-five years. The hon. gentleman knows very well that the latter vessels do not dare to leave the shores of Canada in their present condition. Let us look at the Naval Service Act for just a few moments. It is called "an Act respecting the Naval Service of Canada." It was introduced in this House on the 12th January, 1910, and was assented to on the 4th May following. I want the hon. member to remember that that Act is still in existence, still in force and effect. That Act provides for the establishment of the Department of the Naval Service, full control of naval affairs being vested in the minister of that department. It also provides for the placing of the Naval Service of Canada under the Naval Discipline Act and the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, so far os applicable.


William Duff: Did the hon. member vote for that Act which he is reading from?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This Act was passed while I was a member of Parliament and-if I remember rightly I did not object to it. The Act further provides for the appoints ment of an officer to be called the Director of the Naval Service, who shall, subject to the regulations and under the instructions of the Minister of the Department, be charged with the directions of the Naval Service, and provides also that the Governor in Council may apoint a naval board to advise the minister in all matters relating to Naval Affairs. It also provides for a Naval Reserve Force, to consist of such persons as join the said reserve after Naval Service, or after undergoing such training as may be necessary, all members of said reserve being liable for active service in emergency. It provides also that the Governor in Council may organize and maintain a Naval Volunteer Force, and that the Governor in Council may place the Naval Force, or any part thereof, on active service at any time when it appears advisable so to do, by reason of an emergency.
Other provisions of the Act may be summarized as follows: In case of emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty for general service in the Royal Navy, the Canadian Naval Service, or any part thereof.
The Command in Chief of the Naval Forces is declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative. The institution of the Royal Naval College of Canada is provided for by that Act also. I would like the hon. member to take particular note of this. He suggests that we should sell the naval dockyards at Halifax and Esquimau and clean up the whole business, "the dirty mess"; as he calls it. The naval dockyard at Halifax had been taken over by the Canadian Government previous to the enactment of this legislation, or to be exact, on the first January, 1907, and on the 7th November, following the coming into force of this Act in 1910, the dockyard at Esquimalt was taken over. Included in these transfers were the following properties. At Halifax the Royal Naval dockyard and hospital, camimander in chief's house and grounds, recreation grounds, and cemetery at Esquimalt, the Royal Naval dockyard and hospital, naval coal stores at Thetis wharf, the magazine establishment at Cole island, the Royal Naval recreation and drill grounds with buildings, and the Royal Naval cemetery chapel.
I should like the hon. member to pay particular attention to this provision: The Dominion Government will maintain the above mentioned properties at Halifax and Esquimalt in a state of efficiency, make any alteration in the buildings, wharves, jetties, etc., or in the present use of the sites; maintain the existing depth of water alongside the frontages of the properties, conveniences at least equal in character to those which exist at present. The Dominion Government will arrange for the stocking of coal or other fuel at Halifax and Esquimau. But the hon. gentleman would scrap these and if the British navy came to our coast, they would not be able to have their vessels repaired unless these docks were in existence. Here is an important point. In May 1912 arrangements were made between the Canadian and Imperial Governments whereby the Naval Department undertook responsibility for the naval defence of defended ports in Canada. These defences include such matters as regulation of traffic, examination service, minesweeping in the approaches to the ports, establishment of



war signal stations, the construction of channels and general attack by torpedo craft. How can the undertakings be carried on without money? Are we to turn down the proposals made by the British Government? The hon. member for Lunenburg says: Yes, turn them down with scorn. That is the word he used.


William Duff: I am sure my hon. friend does not want to misquote me. 1 said: Turn down the submarines with scorn, not the cruiiSer or the torpedo boat destroyers.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understood that my hon. friend was prepared to turn down the whole proposition with scorn. If he intends to turn down only the submarines with scorn, I think we can fairly conclude that he would not oppose turning down the whole proposition.


William Duff: But not with scorn.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Nat ait
all.
Mr. LElMIEUX:	Yes. My hon. friend
says, in effect: Here is Great Britain taxing herself $10 per head, whilst in Canada we offer her only twenty-five cents per head. Great Britain has not asked any of her Dominions to tax herself.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am
quite sure my hon. friend has no intention of misrepresenting me.
Mr. LE.MIEUX: I have stated just what I gathered from the hon. member's remarks.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I certainly
never made such a statement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is what I gathered from the hon. member's remarks, but if it is not what he meant I am ready to abide by his correction.
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton). The statement as regards Great .Britain being compelled to pay $10.75 per head is correct, and the people of Canada are asked to pay only 25 cents.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The people of Canada
are being asked to pay-by whom?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: By the Canadian
Parliament.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is where my hon. friend is mistaken. We are being offered a cruiser, two destroyers and two submarines, which form the nucleus of a navy. But we have not .asked for that. We are offered the embryo of a navy, and surely it will grow. Canada does not intend to protect her coast lines with the nucleus of a navy; this is

only a beginning. My hon. friend should know that this gift is offered to us from the Admiralty "through Lord Jellicoe, in order that Canada should 'assume for the future all expenditure involved in the up-keep of a greater navy. My hon. friend went on to say that he was humiliated, when on the other side in 1916 he visited the British fleet after the battle of Jutland and saw the name "Canada" inscribed on one of His Majesty's ships. He felt rather cheap at the idea that Canada had not contributed one red cent towards the maintenance of that ship. Let me say to my hon. friend that if he felt ashamed on that visit I am rather pleased to hear him make the confession, because it is the first sign of repentance by one of those loyal Tories of 1910 who opposed so bitterly the Canadian navy, which whilst protecting Canada could meet the emergencies that might confront the British Empire. My hon. friend should not have forgotten the events of 1909-10. The policy which is beinig propounded this evening by the Minister of Naval Affairs was 'evolved by the late (Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his Government. It was introduced first in 1909 in the form of a resolution which was 'amended, the amendment being accepted unanimously by both sides of the House. In 1910 the Government came before Parliament with a Canadian policy, the naval Bill whose principal features were read a moment ago by my hon, friend (Mr. Armstrong). He now has the brass-pardon me, Mr. Chairman, the use of the expression-to' say that he did not oppose it! I have not the Votes and Proceedings under my hand, but I know that my hon. friend voted against that Bill in the House on the third reading. And when he speaks of humiliation, the humiliation is on the Tory party sitting behind the Liberal Unionist minister who stands fast by the old Laurier Naval policy, although the time is not opportune to-day to put it into force. The humiliation is on the 'Tory party, norw obliged to accept a policy which they denounced from one end olf the country to the other,- denounced in the county of Laimbton as being a separatist policy; denounced in the province of Quebec, in my constituency, in [DOT]the constituency of Reanoe, in the constituency of Kiamouraska;-in short, in the sixty-five constituencies of my native province 'a.s being too British. Sir, what are the facts? When in 1910, the Naval Bill was about to be read a third time, a gentleman rose from his seat and moved this amendment:

Mr. Speaker, in amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read the second time, I move that the word "now" be struck out, and the words be added at the end of the motion "this day six months."
This 'amendment was moved by Mr. Northrup, who at that time was a member of the House of Commons. The vote was taken on the 10th day of March, 1910. The House divided on Mr. Northirup's amendment, and the first name on the list of nays is the proud name of the bon. member for Lambkin, Mr. Armstrong!


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will my hon. friend allow me a quesltion?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Juslt allow me one moment, please. I am rather pleased to find 'that at last there "is some sign of repentance on my hon. friend's part for his orwn action of a few years ago. The hon. member, I have no doub't, now regards his vote when my old chief Sir Wilfrid Laurier, propounded a national policy which ib now adopted by the Government and which in 1910 h)ad been endorsed by the Admiralty.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I aisk a, question?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Can yon tell us why the Government of that day did not put that policy into force? And what about the three dreadnought policy?


Rodolphe Lemieux: order. They are coming to us and asking that money be appropriated for the Naval Service, and they tell us that a year or two hence they will announce what their naval policy is. That is no way to treat Parliament, and in order so far as possible to uphold the rights of Parliament we on this side are determined not to vote appropriations as a mere matter of temporary expediency, but at a time like this to demand from the Government in the first instance a statement of what their policy is. If that policy commends itself to us and to the country we will give it our support; if it does not, we will dk* our utmost to oppose it, believing that our opposition will be supported by the country at large.
Let me remind the House that at the beginning of this session during the first debate that took place I emphasized very strongly our disapproval of the habit that this Government have fallen into of leaving pveir until the very last days of the session matters of great national importance, and in particular asking Parliament to vote millions of dollars for expenditure which the people's representatives have had no opportunity to consider and discuss. I then stated that if the Government continued that objectionable course, we on this side of the House would be doubly careful before we acquiesced in the passage of any measure that would be the means of furthering (Wait kind of adtion in the future. Notwithstanding that the Government has had ample warning, it is simply repeating this method, particularly in reference to the naval service.
On the 22nd of March the Main Estimates were presented to the House, and they contained the item:
Naval service-To provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, 1920-21, $300,000 ; 1919-20, $600,000.
,Or compared with the Estimates of 1920, a decrease of $300,000. On the 25th of March, just three days later, the Minister of Naval Affairs made a statement in this House on what he termed the naval policy of the Government, which contained the following:
In view of Canada's heavy financial commitments and of the fact that Great Britain has not as yet decided on her permanent naval policy, and if the approaching Imperial Conference at which the question of naval defence of the Empire will come up for discussion between the Home Government and the Overseas Dominions, it has been decided to defer in the meantime action in regard to the adoption of a permanent naval policy for Canada.
The House-*


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Read on.

Mr. MACKENZIE KlING:	I will in a
moment. The House and the country generally read these two statements together -the statement the minister gave three days after the Estimates were brought down, and the figures quoted in the Estimates. When they saw that the Government proposed a decrease of $300,000, as compared with the amount expended last year, they warmly approved and applauded that action, because it was generally felt that at this time before the work of demobilization arising out of the great war had been completed, and while Parliament was still voting vast sums of money for demobilisation, the Government was at least showing a sense of perspective in not asking for additional sums for the creation of a naval service.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Why does the hon. member not read the whole of my statement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I read; the
whole statement the other day.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It would do no harm 'to Tead it agin.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The next paragraph which my hon. friend is so anxious that I should read is as follows:
The Government has decided to carry on the Canadian Naval Service along pre-war lines and has accepted the offer of Great Britain of one light cruiser and two torpedo boat destroyers to take the place of the present obsolete and useless training ships, the Niobe and Rainbow.
What I have to say to my hon. friend is this. When he made to the House the statement that the Government had decided to carry on the Canadian naval service along pre-war lines, and there was before the House the item in the Main Estimates I have quoted, if he had anything else in his mind, if he contemplated an Estimate, not of $300,000. but of $2,500,000, he should have told Parliament so at that time. Either he had nolt anything in his mind at that time and the whole business is as II have described it-my hon. friend shakes his head. Well, then he had in his mind that he was going to come to Parliament in the last days of the session, and ask Parliament to volte $2,500,000, and he was afraid- to mention it when he thought we would be able to discuss the whole policy without any need of haste.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: When 1 made the
statement that the Government Was going to carry on along pre-war lines, if my hon. friend had looked up the former Estimates, he would have seen that carrying on along

on pre-war lines would mean an expenditure of $1,500,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I purpose
taking, and I think we are justified in taking, the Government at their own word as the minister presented his statement on the naval situation, not as he brings it down in the dying days of this session. The minister, in bringing down his statement, said that Canada's veTy heavy financial commitments are a consideration. We purpose taking that view of the matter, and we would ask the minister to confine his expenditure on naval matters to what he intimated' he was going to ask for at the tame he made that statement. We ask him>
that because we believe Canada's financial commitments are very heavy at this time. This year we can afford to economise in some directions, while we cannot afford to economise in others. We possibly cannot avoid an expenditure of thirty or forty million dollars on demobilization, but we can avoid an expenditure of $2,500,000 in regard to those vessels the minister hopes to have temporarily in commission. The minister said further:
In view of Canada's heavy financial commitments and of the fact that Britain has not as yet decided on her permanent naval policy, and of the approaching Imperial Conference at which the question of naval defence of the Empire will come up for discussion between the Home Government and the Overseas Dominions, it has been decided to defer in the meantime action in regard to the adoption of a permanent naval policy for Canada.
We Bay: If the minister has decided to defer his permanentt naiwal policy until this conference, we think we are justified in lacking him to- defer in the meantime (further expenditures on the navy than whaJt is absolutely necessary toi keep in existence the nucleus which may have to be continued after a permanent policy has been determined upon.


Arthur Meighen: Is Britain doing that?
Mr. MACKENZIE; KING:	Britain has
her policies to consider; we have our policies to consider. Great Britain has unquestionably certain matters to consider as regards her navy, having regard to her insular position and the equipment which she has, matters which are wholly different from the consideration of which we in this country have to take account at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: My point is this. Is it not true, as set forth in the statement, that Britain's permanent naval policy has not been finally adopted? Is it not also true
that Britain is doing as we are doing now, voting money to support a temporary policy in the meantime?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think, if my hon. friend compares Britain's military and naval expenditures to-day with her prewar expenditures, he will find that the former are considerably less.


Arthur Meighen: Less !


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Nearly
double.


Arthur Meighen: They are far more.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course,
there is the enormous upkeep of vessels in commission built during the war, vessels which Great Britain has not yet got completely rid of and some of which she is presenting to us at the present time and which my hon. friend wishes to relieve her of. But I do not think my hon. friend will find that Great Britain is entering upon any enlargement of the programme which she had when she came out of the war. That is the point I am making. What my hon. friend proposes to do is to take a naval condition which we have at the end of the war and to enlarge upon that very materially.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Might I-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend tell us what proportion of that is for the upkeep of ships built during the war, ships which Great Britain cannot afford to dispense with at the present time, and what part of it is for new constructive work, something entirely new in the way of additions to the British navy? Then, he will get the contrast I am endeavouring to point, which is this. What the minister is proposing now is that we should take a condition which we have at the present moment and enlarge upon it by fresh expenditures. I am contending that all Great Britain is doing is to continue what she found herself with at the end of the war, but that she is not enlarging her programme.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not a fact that if we proceed to maintain the old ships, that would cost more than this? That is what the hon. gentleman recommends.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The old ships have, I understand, been out of commission for some time. They certainly have not been in commission since the war. What we are considering now is whether we should put new vessels into commission this year or wait until the Government has a permanent policy. We are not to-day Saying that nothing shall he done as regards naval defence for Canada. What we say is that the minister should go leniently in the matter of naval expenditure until it policy is determined upon. When that policy is determined upon and is brought before Parliament, we shall be prepared to vote the money necessary to carry out that policy if it be one of which the Canadian people approve. In connection with naval matters, we have to take account, not only of naval expenditures, but of military expenditures and all war expenditures, and as my hon. friend knows, there is no comparison between such expenditures before the war and after the war. Before the war we had no expenditures to meet in the way of obligations arising out of the war. This year we have war expenditures amounting to 8171,934,464 to meet before anything is touched in the way of what may be necessary for military and naval purposes. The regular expenditure for the naval service runs to over $2,000,000. When we are expending that amount of money in a year such as this, we can well afford to ask ourselves whether the demands of economy at the present time do not justify some caution in the matter of outlay on simply temporary expediente. It is for that reason I am going to suggest to the committee that instead of voting what the minister has asked in the Main Estimates and in the Supplementary Estimates, we give him all that he asked for when the Main Estimates were brought down, and that we strike out from the total amount what he is asking in the way of Supplementary Estimates to the amount of $1,700,000. The Supplementary Estimates ask also for a further item of $60,000 for the pay of temporary officers and clerks at headquarters, HaMax land Esquimalit dockyards, I think we can agree to let that item pass because it is not desired by hon. members on this side of the House in any way to interfere with the dockyards at Halifax

or Esquimalt or the pay of the officers and clerks who may be required there.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Does my hon. friend think that for the small sum of $300,000 Canada can maintain dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt? If he does, he is very much mistaken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then how did the minister dare to come to this Parliament with his Main Estimates containing an item of only $300,000, and make a statement before this House on naval matters, when all the time he knew that what he was asking was not sufficient to carry out what he was pretending to the country he intended to do? I say that something is owing by the Ministry to Parliament, and if the Ministry is going to ignore Parliament it is high time for Parliament to begin to ignore the Ministry. Let me say further, that hon. gentlemen know or they ought to know by this time, that they have no mandate from the people in matters of naval affairs one way or the other. They have never had an expression of the people's views as to what Is desired in the matter of these expenditures. So far as they know the people's opinion at all, it is that the people do not want them entrusted with the expenditure of another five-cent piece. We on this side of the House would be thoroughly justified if we held up every item of supply until the Government recognized the wave of popular indignation against them that is sweeping this country and gave the people of this country an opportunity to return to this Parliament men who are representative of the will of the country and are prepared to carry that will into effect. In this matter of naval expenditure I say that the people of Canada are not with the minister in the demand he is making at the present time for this amount of money. Until there is a permanent naval policy, and until that policy has been approved by Parliament, we are justified in saying that we will hold down to the minimum any expenditures that the Government ask for in regard to Naval Service. I therefore move that we strike out town the Supplementary Estimates the sum of $1,700,000 and save, if possible, to the country that amount of unnecessary expenditure by this Government.


William Stevens Fielding: May I suggest that we pass the item of $300,000, and then vote if necessary on the second item.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sorry I cannot agree to the suggestion. As soon as we took

up my Estimates I moved and got the unanimous consent of the committee to consider this item of $1,700,000 in the Supplementary Estimates in conjunction with the item cxf $300,000 in the Main Es'tlima'ttes.


William Stevens Fielding: It doesn't make any difference.	.


Ernest Lapointe: I jusit wish to say a word or two as to the reasons why I am opposed to this item in the Supplementary Estimates, and why I am going to support the amendment offered by the leader of the Opposition. My objections to this item are the same objections that I made the other night to- the increase in the Militia Estimates-, and I feel it is net neoes0ary far me to formulate the same reasons again on- this occasion. My hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), while my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) was speaking asked why the Go.vernime<nt discarded the naval law which had been adopted in 1910. I think I am in a position to tell him why they did. I have in my hand the Hansard of the session of 1911-1912, containing statements made by the ministers of the then Government, which will give my hon. friend the answer he is asking for. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries of that day, hon. Mr. Hazen said (Hansard page 5303):
I m-ay say pending the declaration of what the policy of this Government will be touching the naval service-which, as my hon. friends know, the Prime Minister announced in the debate on the Address would not be determined until after full opportunity was had of considering the whole question and of first consulting with the Admiralty authorities in the matter-it has been thought better that the Estimates this year should be based on the idea of maintaining the existing ships and the existing establishments, including the Naval College at Halifax, on a proper basis, without adding new ships or adding to the equipment we have at the present time more than is necessary for the purpose of maintaing it in proper condition. It is on that basis entirely that the Estimates are made up this year.
The Postmaster General of that day, Hon. Mr. Pelletier, said

Hansard page 5314:
I may tell him further that that vote (the vote in the Estimates of 1912) is absolutely logical and consistent with the policy of the Conservative party. When we came into power we found certain conditions existing; we found that a naval college had been built at Halifax and that two ships had been purchased. Does the right hon. gentleman mean to say that we should have set fire to that college and sunk those two ships? It is true that one of them had met with a bad accident on a certain trip down in Yarmouth, but nevertheless, we found her there with the other ships, both belonging to Canada.
Further on, he said:
We had under the circumstances to continue what the late Government had -put into operation. It would have been ridiculous, even for those so-called bad Nationalists In Quebec, without one moment -of consideration, to close the naval college and give the ships to some other country. That would not be reasonable.
All the members of the Government of that day said that of course they had to keep the Rainbow and the Niofee, hut that -they would bake great e-are not to add any other new ships 'to 'those two relics they had received1 from 'the previous adkni-nistria-tion. In 1913 the same thing was said. Here is wh'at a v-ery prominent gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) who was Prime Minister of that dlay and is Prime Minister still said at the same session-Han-s-ard, page 5355:	,	I [DOT]
It is for that reason that we thought the late Government were wrong in proposing such a policy, and that they did not go to the very heart of the matter; and that before we entered into any arrangement of that kind we must know where we were standing within this Empire. So, we propose that the naval policy of the late Government should not be continued, and we do propose before any naval policy is entered upon that some of those matters shall be considered and when that policy is brought down it shall be presented to Parliament, and the people of this country shall be given an opportunity to pronounce upon it.
So the right hon. geu'tleman, who was leader of the Governm-euft, said that the reason why Canada- could not go- on with the naval policy of -the 'bate Government was, first, that we di-d not know at that 'time where -we were standing within the Empire, and, secondly, that before entering upon any permanent policy it should be first leuib-mitted to the people of this country. Those two reasons hold good to-day. We do not know any more clearly where we stand within the Empire, especially on the eve of an Imperial Conference, at whidh the status of Canada and of all the British Dominions is -going to 'be considered, discussed and decided upon, an-d alt which 'the question- of -the naval defence of the Empire is. going to- be discussed.	I	askyou, Mr. Oh-airm-an, what	is	thecause	of	all	'this	haste? Why&h'ould	w-e	take	those	ships	-to-day?
Why should we, having declared that wo have no policy, enter upon an undertaking which is r.eally a policy? The Prime Minister pledged the Government at that time that nothing further would be done without the people of -Canada having an opportunity to pass upon it. Surely no hon. gentleman would say that the people of Canada have pronounced upon the new policy instigated by the Minister of Naval affairs. The elections of 1917 were certain-

iy not conducted on any naval policy. This Parliament unquestionably has no mandate of any kind from the people to adopt such a policy. Why this haste? I repeat. Why 'should you be in such a desperate hurry to accept those ships and to enter upon a programme of naval defence? Mr. Chairman, (Conditions are altogether different now from -what they were in 1910. They are different so far as the financial situation is concerned. We had the financial means to enlter upon such a programme in 1910, but we have no such means to-day. And there was a menace then. Where is the menace to-day? Germany is impotent; she can do no harm. She is disarmed, both on land and on sea, and her allies are disarmed. They can do absolutely nothing against Britain or against Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Did not my hon.
friend say then that there was no menace?


Ernest Lapointe: That is one of the fine interjections of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. Why should he ask me that question? What has that got to do with the present contention I am advancing? Is there a menace to-day? I ask my hon. friend tlhia't question,


Arthur Meighen: I would say tiheire is no immediate menace to-day; but that does not say that this country as a nation, asserting the rights of nationhood, Should not incur the obligations of nationhood.


Ernest Lapointe: Why do you not wait until next year when our status will be defined?


William Antrobus Griesbach: Will you say now
that you will accept the status then defined and agree to assume the obligations which that conference may impose upon us?


Ernest Lapointe: Let me tell my hon.
iriend that I will not accept anything that he or anybody else may define for me. I may say to the hon. gentlemen that we have different ideas on many questions.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: And 1 am rather of the opinion that we would not agree on this question. My hon. friend is a militarist. He has proposed.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Will the hon. gentleman tell me what a militarist is?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend wants a course in militarism I will ask the adjournment of the committee and I will give
[Mr. E. Lapointe.4
it to him on Monday. I have not the time between now and twelve o'clock. Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister by means of his interjection has induced me to speak of something else. I do not quite remember the point at which I left off, but I shall proceed to say a word or two in regard to the League ef Nations. The countries of the world in 'the older regime had the system of alliances and the balance of power. One-half of the world was arming against the other half. But this system has been discarded, having been considered vicious and detrimental to the interests of mankind; and it is the cherished hope of every public man in the civilized world that it will not be revived, and that the League of Nations will be an institution that will prove effective in maintaining the peace of the world. I was not here when the hon. member for St. Antoine, (Sir Herbert Ames) spoke the other evening, but I read his speech and I may say that [DOT]it did not require that hon. gentleman's eloquence to convince me that the League of Nations, if its precepts are observed, will be an important factor in promoting international amity. I believe in the League of Nations. I hope this body will accomplish the purpose for which it was conceived and put into operation. Canada is going to contribute. We are asked to contribute over $200,000 for the first year, and I will vote enthusiastically for that contribution. But I will not vote for this project of a navy, for accepting ships and maintaining them before we know what our policy will be as to naval defence in the future.
I do not think that this is an opportune time, when ever nation of the world desires to establish peace on a permanent basis, for Canada to embark upon this undertaking. No one can afford to think of war to-day. War in the immediate future is unthinkable; it would be an unutterable crime. The war that has just ended was frightful enough, but it would be nothing compared to another war that might be precipitated in the present unsettled state of the world, and no nation can afford to take the responsibility for starting another war. I repeat, and I emphasize the point, that this is a most inopportune time for us to enter upon a new programme of this kind.
Another reason which I have for this stand is that we have no status. We do not know where we are on the question of nationhood. We claim we are a nation; I believe wc are a nation; I hope we are

a nation, and that we shall act as a nation. But as my hon. friend has said, next year there will be a conference of all the representatives of the British Empire and the most momentous questions affecting the sister nations of the Empire will be discussed and decided. Let us, therefore, wait until this event has occurred before voting 'the amount of money which Parlia-memlt now asks uis to vote.
My last reason is that this Parliament is not representative. It has not a mandate to vote this appropriation because it was not elected to do so, and furthermore the Government has pledged itself to the country that no naval expenditure will be made without being first submitted to the Canadian people. But there is this further fact to be considered. This Parliament at the present time-and no on-e can gainsay the fact-does not represent the majority *of the Canadian people. Indeed, Sir, it does not even represent a large proportion of the people. Public opinion is decidedly against the present Parliament.
, Mr. BEST:	That is only your opinion;
you don't know.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it? I venture to say that my hon. friend could not be elected in his riding to-day, and he knows it; and .there are many other hon. gentlemen on the other side who could not be elected in their constituencies.


John Best: Don't you think that your county is the whole Dominion.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, I was elected quite recently in my county, and I think I can 'boast that I represent the opinion of my electors to-day. But my hon. friend cannot say the same. This Parliament, I repeat, does not represent public opinion. This Government has not been able to elect a single member supporting it except two ministers. They cannot do it, ministers cannot be replaced when -they die or when they disappear in any other way. We have one of the most important departments in the Government, the Department of Public Works, which is not administered by a minister. There is a seat in this House-seat No. 40-which is vacant. It is going to be vacant until a new Parliament is elected because no minister can be elected by the Canadian people to fill that seat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
minister from the Maritime provinces.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no minister from the Maritime Provinces and there is
no minister representing the province of Quebec east of Montreal. There cannot be any, because nobody can be elected as a supporter of this Government let alone a member of it. When we have such a condition of things, is it reasonable to enter into a new policy, to ask Parliament to vote almost $2,000,000 and to accept ships from the Admiralty as the nucleus of the Canadian navy of the future? Let the Canadian people pronounce upon it. Postpone this vote until next session, let us go to the country and then a Parliament' which will represent the views and opinions of the people of Canada will decide as to the naval policy.


Air. CRERAR:: The ground in this discussion has been so thoroughly covered that I do not think I can add very much that is new to the debate. I do believe, however, that the position of the minister in asking us to pass this vote is illogical and inconsistent. In his speech in this House in the closing days of March he stated that our naval policy would be considered at the next Imperial Conference to be held in 1921. If that is true we must assume that we have no naval policy today. Now, if we have no naval policy, where is the wisdom of considering a vote of about $2,000,000 for naval expenditures this year? I am quite agreeable to the vote that tfhe minister brought down when the Main Estimates were laid before the House but I think the House is quite justified in taking the position that the minister and the Government at that time <did not contemplate this additional expenditure of $1,700,000. That being the case I think those in this committee who are opposed to this vote are simply standing by the position that the minister and the Government took at that time. Now, our naval policy is to he considered at the Imperial conference in 1921. Personally, I regret that the Government have accepted the generous offer made by	the Mother Country	to give
us certain war vessels. It is not known whether these vessels will be of very great use in future wars. I have read recently expressions of opinion by quite competent naval authorities in the Old Land who state that in' future wars the battleships and cruisers that we have had in the past will be of very little use. I have seen it asserted that hereafter light cruisers and submarines might flood the towns and cities along the shores of a hostile country with gas. 'That, I believe, is the opinion of at

least some naval authorities in the Old Land. For these reasons I think we could very well defer this expenditure. But we have other reasons. The Main Estimates call for an expenditure of $550,000,000. We have Supplementary Estimates in addition to the Main Estimates providing for an expenditure of $60,000,000 which means that the Government is asking this country to voite over $600,000,000. The Finance Minister ('Sir Henry Drayton) in the Budget Speech which he delivered a short time ago estimated his revenue for this year at $382,000,000. With such a large discrepancy between our expected revenue and the amount of money we are expending should we vote this $1,700,000 until we get into a position where our accounts will more evenly balance. I think that is a pertinent question in this discussion.
Again, we have given our adherence to the League of Nations. The whole civilized world is looking with hope to the League for the maintenance of peace in the future. Have we any faith in it? Was there any soundness in the arguments that were advanced when we were asked to take our place among the nations of the world who put their names to that covenant? If there is, why not wait to see what the League of Nations is going to do? That is the real hope of the future and I would like to see the Government of this country give a lead to the Canadian people in support of the League of Nations. We find ministers of the Crown in Great Britain openly advocating the League, educating the people to the necessities of the League and the need for it and we should have some similar propaganda in Canada. I would suggest to the Government and to my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) who is not here tonight and who, I believe, largely directs the propaganda of the Government in these matters, that he might very well engage in propaganda to educate the Canadian people to the virtue of the League of Nations. Personally I look upon the League of Nations as the great hope of the future. It is true that events have not altogether justified that hope up to the present, but the future peace of the world lies with the League of Nations; and if it cannot be made to function as it was hoped and intended it would, it is perhaps not too much to say that it may not be many years until our whole civilization, at any rate as we know it, is trembling in the balance. These
are all pertinent questions in relation to the vote that we are asked to give here tonight and such being the case, I must say that I am going to support the amendment offered by the leader of the Opposition. If we are to have any naval policy it should be a Canadian naval policy. I commend the Government for the stand they have taken in that respect, but I think we should postpone the consideration of our future policy unitiil after the Imperial Conference has sat and the whole matter has been fully considered.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not imagine the Government have any intention of protracting this debate into Sunday, and I beg to suggest that we should rise and that the matter be taken up in due course on Monday.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In answer to my
hon. friend I would say that of course I would not approve of the committee sitting on Sunday morning, but I thought I bad an understanding with some hon. members opposite that if this Estimate was debated until close to midnight they would allow it to pass.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If that is the feeling I will not press the question further.


William Stevens Fielding: As far as I am concerned I had not heard of any such understanding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have heard of none. This is the first intimation of it that 1 have heard.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the committee ready for the question? We have two minutes more.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, at this
late hour


Georges Henri Boivin: It is almost 12 o'clock. I would like to get an expression from the minister as to whether we ought to continue.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In view of the
opinion expressed, I beg to move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne the House ajourned at 12 o'clock (midnight).

Monday, June 28, 1920.